Victorian Complaint

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains that Pipeworx selects tools and fills arguments, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like latency, data recency, or whether the tool can handle multi-turn conversations.

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 (two sentences plus examples) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The examples are helpful, though they could be slightly more varied.

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 schema (one string param, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for a query tool. It covers purpose, usage, and provides examples.

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%, but the description adds value by framing the parameter's use as 'in natural language' and providing examples. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 it answers plain English questions by selecting the best data source, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage memory (remember/forget/recall), discover tools, or generate complaints.

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 examples and implies when to use it (any natural language query), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among 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?

The description discloses that the tool returns 'the most relevant tools with names and descriptions' and implies a ranking mechanism. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It is clear about the search-based behavior but does not mention any side effects or limitations beyond the implicit relevance ranking. A score of 4 is appropriate as it is transparent about the core 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 extremely concise, consisting of only three short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the output, and the third provides usage guidance. No extraneous information is included, making it highly 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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and output. A minor gap is the lack of information about error handling or what happens if the query returns no results, but this is acceptable for a search tool. With sibling tools being diverse and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates the query parameter concept. The description does not elaborate on the limit parameter or provide examples of queries, but the schema already explains these well.

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 searches a catalog by describing needs and returns relevant tools with names and descriptions. It specifies a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Pipeworx tool catalog'), and distinguishes itself by instructing to call it 'FIRST' when there are 500+ tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This clearly indicates it is the initial discovery step, differentiating it from sibling tools that presumably do not offer catalog search.

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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action is destructive (delete), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or irreversible consequences. A 3 is adequate as it correctly indicates a write operation.

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?

One sentence, no filler, directly states the action and input requirement. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic use. However, it lacks context on what happens if the key does not exist, or if deletion is irreversible, which would be helpful for an agent.

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% for the single parameter 'key'. The description adds no additional 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?

Description states 'Delete a stored memory by key', which clearly identifies the verb (delete), resource (stored memory), and how (by key). It distinguishes 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 that this tool is used to delete a memory when you know its key, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'forget' vs. 'remember' or 'recall'. No exclusion criteria are given.

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 carries full burden. Describes behavior as retrieval and listing, but does not disclose side effects (none expected), persistence guarantees, or return format. Adequate for a simple read operation, but could be more explicit about non-destructiveness.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance.

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?

Simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. Description covers the two use cases and context. Could mention that keys are session-persistent, but overall sufficient for its simplicity.

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 the single 'key' parameter well-documented in the schema. Description adds context about omitting key to list all, which aligns with schema's optionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds marginal value over 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 specifies verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'memory', distinguishing between two use cases: retrieve by key or list all (omit key). Clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete).

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 states when to omit key (to list all) and the context for use: 'retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.' Does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the purpose 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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses persistence behavior ('authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours') and implies the tool is safe (no destructive language). No contradiction with missing 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action. Could combine the second sentence more concisely, but it's still efficient. Slightly verbose with the list of examples in the schema, but that's schema, not description.

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 has no output schema, but description sufficiently explains what it does and its persistence model. With only 2 simple params and no complex behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by providing usage context ('intermediate findings, user preferences, context') that goes beyond schema, though schema already covers key-value semantics well. Baseline 3 with bonus for added context.

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 'Store' and resource 'key-value pair in session memory'. Distinguishes from sibling tools: 'forget' (delete), 'recall' (retrieve), 'ask_pipeworx' (query external), 'discover_tools' (discover).

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 when to use ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls') and notes authentication persistence vs anonymous session expiry. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but purpose and sibling names imply exclusivity.

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