Weather

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 explains that Pipeworx 'picks the right tool, fills the arguments, and returns the result,' which reveals the tool's intelligent routing behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, operational explanation, and three relevant examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality explained first.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the tool's intelligent routing behavior and natural language interface. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (though there's no output schema to document this), and doesn't mention potential limitations or error cases that 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'question' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal additional context beyond what the schema provides, mentioning 'plain English' and 'natural language' which reinforces but doesn't significantly expand on the schema's 'question' parameter 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 the tool's purpose: 'Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('answer from data source'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing natural language processing instead of requiring tool-specific knowledge. The examples further clarify the scope.

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 states when to use this tool: 'No need to browse tools or learn schemas — just describe what you need.' It contrasts with sibling tools that likely require specific parameters or schemas, providing clear guidance on using this as a natural language alternative to more structured 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-like operation (no side effects mentioned), and it explains the return includes 'paired data + pipeworx:// resource URIs'. Specific data fields are detailed per entity type. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, which would improve 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 tightly written in three sentences: purpose, type-specific details, and efficiency statement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core action and constraints immediately.

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, the description adequately explains returned data (paired data, URIs). It covers entity range (2-5), required parameters, and efficiency gains. However, it could briefly mention the data format (e.g., JSON) or pagination if applicable. Still, it is largely complete for comparison tasks.

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 significant value by explaining that the 'type' parameter determines which data fields are returned (e.g., revenue for companies, adverse-event counts for drugs). This meaningfully supplements the schema's enum and array descriptions.

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 function: comparing 2-5 entities (companies or drugs) side by side in one call. It specifies the exact data fields for each type (e.g., revenue, net income for companies; adverse-event counts for drugs). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_forecast or resolve_entity.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when needing to compare multiple entities efficiently, as it 'replaces 8-15 sequential agent calls'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for single-entity queries. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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 returns 'most relevant tools' and has a default/max limit (implied from schema), but lacks details on ranking criteria, error handling, or performance characteristics. It adds some context about the catalog size ('500+ tools') but doesn't fully compensate for missing 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear use case.

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 (search function with two parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and outcome, but could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., search algorithm, error cases). The 500+ tools context helps, but some gaps remain.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query formatting or limit implications). 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 with specific verbs ('Search the Pipeworx tool catalog') and resource ('tool catalog'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing its discovery function. It explicitly mentions returning 'most relevant tools with names and descriptions', making the outcome concrete.

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.' It also implies an alternative context (not using it when fewer tools are available) and distinguishes from siblings like get_forecast and get_weather by focusing on tool discovery rather than data retrieval.

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 states the tool deletes a memory, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting other tools), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource ('stored memory'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, error handling, or return values, nor does it provide usage context relative to siblings. For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should do more to guide safe and effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'key' documented as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, merely restating 'by key' without explaining key format, constraints, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could enhance understanding with contextual details.

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 action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a stored memory by key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'remember' (store), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be slightly more precise about what 'stored memory' refers to in this context.

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 (e.g., needing an existing memory key), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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 mentions the return data types but lacks critical behavioral details such as data sources, update frequency, rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap 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 concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return values without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return format or errors 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (latitude, longitude, days). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('multi-day weather forecast for a location'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_weather' by specifying it returns forecast data rather than current conditions. It explicitly lists what information is returned (daily high/low temperatures, precipitation, and conditions).

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 it's for 'multi-day weather forecast,' suggesting when to use it versus alternatives like current weather tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tool 'get_weather' as an alternative, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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 data structure (temperature, humidity, wind speed, conditions) which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, error conditions, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description adds some value but 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 perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and return values without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with essential output information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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 read-only weather tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality and return format information. However, it lacks important context about error handling, data sources, units of measurement, or temporal aspects of 'current' weather. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but could be more 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both latitude and longitude parameters fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context about coordinate formats, valid ranges, or special cases.

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 current weather conditions') and resource ('for a location'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_forecast' which likely provides future predictions rather than current conditions. 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 for obtaining current weather data, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the 'get_forecast' sibling. There's no guidance about alternative scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the distinction based on the 'current' versus 'forecast' terminology.

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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses rate limiting and content policy. However, it does not specify the outcome of sending feedback (e.g., confirmation, storage) or whether the message is sent immediately. The 'Free' note is ambiguous.

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 well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds usage rules, and the third specifies the rate limit. 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 low complexity (simple feedback tool with no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, rate limiting, and content policy. It lacks an explicit statement about return value or confirmation, but for a feedback tool, the provided information is largely 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%, so the schema itself documents all parameters with detailed enum descriptions and property explanations. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond reinforcing the 'type' choices and the 'context' structure. The instruction about not including user prompt is helpful but not about parameter syntax.

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: 'Send feedback to the Pipeworx team.' It enumerates specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, missing data, praise) and provides instructions on what to include, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or compare_entities.

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 mentions a rate limit (5 messages per identifier per day) and gives guidance on what to include ('describe what you tried in terms of Pipeworx tools/data — do not include the end-user's prompt verbatim'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the sibling context implies it is the only feedback channel.

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 key behavioral traits: the tool can retrieve both individual memories and list all memories, works across sessions, and handles missing parameters gracefully. However, it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if key doesn't exist) or performance characteristics.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality with parameter semantics. The second sentence provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 retrieval tool with 1 optional parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and parameter behavior. The main gap is lack of output information (no output schema provided), but the description compensates reasonably well for this simple use case.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the semantic meaning of omitting the key ('omit to list all keys') and connects the parameter to the broader purpose ('retrieve context you saved earlier'). This provides valuable operational 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resources ('previously stored memory by key', 'all stored memories'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete) by focusing on retrieval operations.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.' It also explains when to omit the key parameter ('omit key to list all keys'), giving clear operational instructions.

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool performs a write operation (store), explains persistence characteristics (authenticated vs. anonymous sessions), and mentions the 24-hour retention limit for anonymous sessions. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like storage capacity or key constraints.

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 perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides essential usage context and behavioral details. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual coverage. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral characteristics. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or confirmation of successful storage, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'key-value pair' but provides no additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or examples that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Store a key-value pair') and resource ('in your session memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'forget' (delete) and 'recall' (retrieve). It explicitly identifies the tool's function as persistent storage for various data types.

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 ('to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls') and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying the storage mechanism. It also clarifies the persistence differences between authenticated and anonymous users.

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 carries full burden. It discloses supported types, input formats, and return fields (ticker, CIK, name, URIs). Lacks error handling or limits, but for a simple lookup, this 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states main purpose, second provides specific input/output details. 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?

Covers inputs, outputs, and use case benefit. Minor gaps in error handling and idempotency, but for a simple 2-parameter tool, it is fairly complete. No output schema needed given clear return description.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds concrete examples ('AAPL', '0000320193', 'Apple') and explains that type currently supports only 'company', providing context beyond the schema's enum and descriptions.

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 action: 'Resolve an entity to canonical IDs across Pipeworx data sources in a single call.' Verb (Resolve) and resource (entity) are specific, and the benefit over alternatives ('Replaces 2–3 lookup calls') differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and get_forecast.

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?

Provides context on when to use (v1 for company type, accepts ticker/CIK/name) and efficiency gain. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative conditions, but sibling tools are distinct, so usage is clear.

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