overcome-stress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, providing safety and idempotency. The description adds that it recommends therapy content, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. It efficiently communicates purpose and target conditions.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the input (symptoms) and the outcome (recommended therapy content). It could explicitly describe the return format, but is adequate for the low complexity.

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 parameter 'symptoms' has a description and example, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb 'Assess' and names the resource ('client symptoms') and the outcome ('recommend Corpus Systemics therapy content'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_skill, catalog, and preview.

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 clear usage context: assessing clients with symptoms related to post-concussion, post-COVID, burnout, or chronic stress. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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?

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. It adds the payment method (Lightning Network), price range (25-100 satoshis), and the immediate return of an invoice. However, it does not disclose post-payment effects (e.g., skill unlock, non-refundability) or failure modes, so coverage remains partial.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, payment method, price range, and return value. Every piece of information earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how payment works, and what is returned. It could briefly mention the post-payment step (skill becomes available) but overall is sufficiently complete 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (skill_id) with examples of valid values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Purchase'), a resource ('single therapy skill'), and a distinct context ('via Bitcoin Lightning Network'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool buy_trajectory by specifying 'skill' rather than 'trajectory'.

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 (purchasing a skill, likely after browsing catalog/preview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like buy_trajectory. It offers no exclusions or conditions, so guidance is only implicit.

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 adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the tool returns a Lightning invoice and specifies the cost and payment method. However, it does not disclose potential consequences of purchase (e.g., irreversibility, activation process, time limits) or any risks beyond the annotation hints.

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, focused sentence that conveys all essential information: action, object, duration, payment method, cost, and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers basic elements: it returns an invoice and states cost. However, it omits context like needing to first browse the catalog to obtain a trajectory_id, how the invoice is to be used, and what happens after payment. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the purchase flow.

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 already provides full description for the only parameter (trajectory_id) with examples. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is comprehensive.

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: purchasing a recovery trajectory via Bitcoin Lightning. It specifies the resource (trajectory), the action (purchase), and distinct attributes (12-week, cost). This differentiates it from sibling tools like buy_skill, which would presumably purchase skills instead.

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 like buy_skill, catalog, or preview. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a trajectory_id from catalog) or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and action.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds domain context (pricing, target conditions) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or authorization requirements. Given annotations cover the main concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes relevant details (pricing, conditions) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, achieving excellent conciseness and structure.

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 read-only catalog tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool returns (skills and trajectories), includes pricing and target conditions, and works well with the annotations to give a full picture.

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%, with the optional 'category' parameter clearly explained in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning by mentioning skills and trajectories, but it does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 'Browse[s] the complete Corpus Systemics therapy content catalog' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from siblings by specifying that it returns available skills and trajectories, whereas siblings like buy_skill and buy_trajectory are for purchasing, and assess/preview serve other purposes.

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 that this is the browsing tool for catalog content, which implies usage when the user wants to discover available options. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns 'first session content and expected outcomes,' disclosing what the user gets from a preview call. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful context about return content.

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 short sentences with no redundant information. The key verb and purpose are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. Annotations handle safety, making this adequately 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 input schema already provides full documentation for trajectory_id with examples and coverage of 100%. The description doesn't add further parameter-level detail beyond reconfirming the role of trajectory_id in a therapy context, so a baseline score of 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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' and specifies 'free preview of a therapy trajectory before purchase,' clearly distinguishing it from purchase tools like buy_trajectory. It also states what is returned, making its 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 phrase 'before purchase' indicates when to use this tool relative to buy_trajectory, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the 'before purchase' wording imply it's for evaluation prior to buying.

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