Tinder Bio

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

Describes behavior as picking the right tool and filling arguments, which goes beyond annotations (none provided). However, does not detail limitations (e.g., data freshness, latency, or when it might fail). Still, the description is honest about the autonomous routing.

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?

Concise at 4 sentences. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Examples are helpful but could be trimmed to 1-2. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema) and rich annotations (none), the description is largely complete. It explains the autonomous behavior and gives examples. Could mention that it may not handle domain-specific jargon or that answers depend on available tools.

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% with only one parameter 'question'. The description adds context by explaining it's natural language and providing examples, but the schema already describes it well. Baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool accepts a plain English question and returns an answer from the best data source. Distinguishes itself from siblings by acting as a natural language router, unlike others like discover_tools or tinder_bio_generate.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'just describe what you need', implying it's for broad questions. Provides concrete examples, making it clear this is the go-to for quick answers without needing to browse 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?

Without annotations, description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'most relevant tools with names and descriptions' and that it's for a catalog of 500+ tools. However, it doesn't specify whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, though search is inherently safe. Slight gap but still 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 earning its place: purpose, return value, and when to use. No wasted words.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. Missing details like exact result format or pagination, but for a search tool with simple schema, this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: it repeats the query example pattern and mentions default/max limit. No extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool searches a tool catalog by natural language query and returns relevant tool names and descriptions. The verb 'search' and resource 'tool catalog' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by being the only search/discovery tool among 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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative is browsing or guessing, making it a recommended first step.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the operation is deletion, which is inherently destructive, but does not mention reversibility, confirmation, or side effects. It is adequate but not detailed.

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?

A single sentence of 6 words, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place. No unnecessary information.

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 has one simple required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description is sufficient for basic understanding, but could mention what happens if the key does not exist or if the deletion is successful.

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% (the only parameter 'key' is described as 'Memory key to delete'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 'Delete a stored memory by key' is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly states what action is performed and on what, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve).

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 stating the action, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remember' or 'recall'. However, given the sibling names, the distinction is clear without explicit guidance.

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 omitting the key lists all memories, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention if retrieval is read-only, any side effects, or persistence across sessions beyond 'earlier in the session or in previous sessions'. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core functionality; the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains both modes (by key and list all) and provides context about retrieving saved information. No major 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% (the one parameter 'key' is described). The description adds the behavioral detail that omitting the key lists all memories, which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema, so score is above baseline 3.

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 retrieves a memory by key or lists all memories, with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('stored memory'). It distinguishes itself from 'remember' and 'forget' by focusing on retrieval.

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 this tool ('to retrieve context you saved earlier') and implies the alternative ('omit key' to list all). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with siblings like 'remember' or 'discover_tools', but the context is clear.

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 discloses persistence behavior (authenticated vs 24-hour TTL), which adds value beyond the absence of annotations. However, it does not mention idempotency, size limits, or whether overwriting is allowed. With no annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the first defines the action, the second explains use cases and persistence. No filler or redundancy.

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 key-value operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and persistence. It lacks explicit mention of return value or error cases, but these are minimal concerns for a straightforward tool.

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 both parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., key and value descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Store a key-value pair in your session memory', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'forget' (delete), making the purpose 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 provides clear usage guidance: 'save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'. It distinguishes between authenticated and anonymous sessions, which is useful context, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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