rickmorty

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does and how, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) and return values, which could be important for an AI agent. This makes it complete enough for basic use but with notable omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Character ID (e.g. 1 for Rick Sanchez).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific Rick and Morty character by their ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Rick and Morty character'), and method ('by their ID'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_characters' (which likely searches rather than fetches by ID), so it misses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'by their ID,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving a known character rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_characters' or provide any exclusions (e.g., not for bulk retrieval). This leaves some ambiguity, making it adequate but with gaps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format/details are returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get details about a specific Rick and Morty episode') and includes essential context ('by its ID'). There is zero waste, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., title, characters, air date), behavioral aspects like error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter with an example. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing it's for episode IDs but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get details') and resource ('Rick and Morty episode'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_character and get_location by specifying it's for episodes. It provides a concrete example ('Pilot') to illustrate usage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'specific Rick and Morty episode by its ID', which suggests it's for retrieving details of known episodes rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like search_characters or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving details by ID, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe key behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), response format, or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., location name, type, residents), how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to compensate, which it fails to do.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as a number representing a location ID. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid IDs or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get details about') and resource ('a specific Rick and Morty location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_character' or 'get_episode' beyond mentioning 'location', which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_characters' or other siblings. It simply states what the tool does without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of matching characters, which hints at read-only behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether it's case-sensitive, supports partial matches, has rate limits, or requires authentication. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and highly concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and outcome without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by clearly conveying essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output type, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., search behavior, error handling) and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to provide fuller context. For a simple search tool, it's minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning examples ('e.g., "Rick", "Morty", "Beth"') in the schema description, but doesn't provide additional semantics like search logic or result ordering. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for Rick and Morty characters by name' specifies the verb (search) and resource (characters), and 'Returns a list of matching characters' indicates the outcome. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_character' (likely retrieves a single character by ID) by focusing on search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for searching characters by name, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_character' (e.g., for exact matches vs. fuzzy searches). It mentions the domain (Rick and Morty) but lacks context on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage inferred rather than clearly defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.