trivia

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 counts, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it requires authentication. This leaves significant gaps 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 without unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's function in a compact form.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral context, which would be needed for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'category' parameter as a number ID with a reference to list_categories. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Get' and the resource 'total and per-difficulty question counts for a specific category.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on statistics rather than listing categories (list_categories) or retrieving questions (get_questions).

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 statistical analysis of a category, and the schema references list_categories to get IDs, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_questions for detailed question data.

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 optional filtering and the source (Open Trivia Database), but does not cover important behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves gaps 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and optional features. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and filtering options but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits or response structure. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for full 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing the filterable fields (category, difficulty, type) without providing additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and resource 'trivia questions from the Open Trivia Database', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_category_stats' and 'list_categories' by focusing on retrieving questions rather than category information.

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 usage by mentioning optional filtering parameters (category, difficulty, type), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_categories' for category IDs. It implies usage for retrieving questions with filters, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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 the tool lists categories and IDs, indicating a read-only operation, but does not add behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description is accurate but lacks depth beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the purpose ('List all available trivia categories and their IDs') with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a basic list operation. It specifies what is listed (categories and IDs), but lacks details on output format or behavioral context, which is acceptable for this low-complexity 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by clearly stating the tool's function without redundancy.

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 ('List all available trivia categories and their IDs') with the exact resource ('trivia categories'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_category_stats' (which focuses on statistics) and 'get_questions' (which retrieves questions). It uses precise verbs and specifies the output format (IDs included).

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 it lists 'all available' categories, suggesting it's for retrieving a comprehensive list. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_category_stats' (e.g., for detailed stats) or 'get_questions' (e.g., for fetching questions), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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