swapi

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 describes the return data (title, episode number, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if an invalid ID is provided), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps in behavioral 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input method, and return data. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no unnecessary details, making it highly concise and easy to understand.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields but lacks details on error cases, behavioral constraints, or usage nuances. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what to expect in responses or failures would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Film ID (e.g., 1 for A New Hope)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as valid ID ranges or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 a Star Wars film') and resource ('by its numeric ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_planet or get_starship. It explicitly identifies the domain (Star Wars films) and the retrieval mechanism (numeric ID), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 specifying 'by its numeric ID' and listing return fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_people. It provides context for retrieving specific films but lacks guidance on exclusions or direct comparisons with sibling tools.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns specific data fields, which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('Get a Star Wars planet by its numeric ID') and follows with return details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy or waste.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is adequate for a simple lookup. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally cover more behavioral aspects like error cases or data freshness to be fully helpful.

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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Planet ID (e.g., 1 for Tatooine)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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: 'Get a Star Wars planet by its numeric ID' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Star Wars planet'), and 'Returns name, climate, terrain, population, and orbital data' details the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_film' or 'get_starship' by focusing on planets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond that.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions retrieving a planet by ID but doesn't clarify if this is for specific lookups versus broader searches (e.g., compared to 'search_people'), or any prerequisites like ID availability. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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 full burden. It discloses the return data structure (name, model, manufacturer, etc.), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is idempotent - gaps for a tool with zero 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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and input, the second specifies outputs. Every word serves a clear function, and information is front-loaded appropriately for quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate coverage of purpose and return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or performance characteristics that would be helpful given the absence of structured metadata.

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% with the single parameter well-documented, so baseline would be 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the ID parameter with 'Starship ID' and providing an example ('e.g., 9 for the Death Star'), though this example is also in the schema. It earns a 4 for reinforcing and slightly expanding on schema information.

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 a Star Wars starship'), identifies the resource ('by its numeric ID'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on starships rather than films, planets, or people. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 its numeric ID' and listing return fields, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_people for broader queries. It doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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 the return fields (name, attributes, etc.) but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose and another lists return fields. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return fields, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., search behavior, errors) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations, it should do more to compensate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no details on search syntax, partial matches, or case sensitivity). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: searching Star Wars characters by name. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'Star Wars characters', making it distinct from sibling tools like get_film or get_planet. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling search tools (none listed), so it's not a perfect 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to sibling tools like get_film. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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