Temperature Random

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: Pipeworx selects the right tool and fills arguments, abstracting complexity. With no annotations provided, this transparency is valuable, though it doesn't detail failure modes or limitations.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the core capability and supporting with examples. Minor improvement could be more direct structure, but it's efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what users need to know. Examples provide context, and no output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter 'question' should be a natural language request, with examples. This goes beyond the schema's 'Your question or request in natural language' by illustrating usage.

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: to answer natural language questions by intelligently routing to the best data source. It provides specific examples like trade deficits and SEC filings, making the verb+resource relationship unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly advises users to 'just describe what you need' and avoid browsing tools or schemas, which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names.

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 explains that the tool searches by 'describing what you need' and 'Returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions.' It does not mention any side effects or limitations like pagination, but given the simple read-only nature, the description is adequate.

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 three sentences long with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the output, and the third provides usage guidance. Slightly more concise could be achieved, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 that the tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers its purpose and usage. It could mention that the output is a list of tool names and descriptions, which it does, and explains when to call it. No major gaps are evident.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters (query and limit) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds context by providing example queries for the 'query' parameter, which enhances understanding but is not strictly necessary. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Pipeworx tool catalog', and specifies that it returns tool names and descriptions. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it should be called 'FIRST' to find relevant tools among 500+ available.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and implies it is a preliminary step before using other 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 provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It says 'delete' but doesn't specify if operation is permanent, whether confirmation is needed, or any side effects.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Tool is simple but missing output schema and behavioral details. For a deletion operation, more context about return value or error handling would be 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 coverage is 100% and parameter description is clear ('Memory key to delete'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Delete' and resource 'a stored memory by key', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' (read) and 'remember' (write).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Could mention that it's irreversible or provide context about key validity.

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?

The description mentions behavioral aspects like retrieving from 'this session or in previous sessions', implying persistence across sessions. No annotations exist to contradict or supplement. It does not detail what happens if the key does not exist or if listing returns many items. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first states functionality, second provides usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the key action.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It explains both retrieval and listing, and mentions cross-session memory. Could note return format, but not critical for a simple key-value retrieval.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'key' parameter well. The description adds value by explaining the two use cases (retrieve vs list) and the consequence of omitting the key. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Retrieve' / 'list') and resource ('previously stored memory by key'), and distinguishes between retrieving a specific memory vs listing all. It is explicit and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool ('retrieve context you saved earlier') and how to choose between retrieving by key vs omitting key to list all. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings like 'forget' or 'remember', though the context is clear enough.

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 discloses that memory is persistent for authenticated users and lasts 24 hours for anonymous sessions, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention any limits on number of keys or size, but overall transparency is good.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action statement, use-case guidance, and persistence detail. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required string params, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral notes. Missing potential details like max key length or whether values can be overwritten, but for the complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context about the value being any text and provides example keys (like 'subject_property'), adding meaningful usage guidance beyond the schema. Score 4 because it adds some value but schema already covers basics.

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 verb ('Store'), the resource ('key-value pair in session memory'), and the purpose ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'forget' and 'recall' by focusing on storage.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to save findings, preferences, context across calls). It mentions persistence differences between authenticated users and anonymous sessions, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like 'recall' for retrieval.

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