MagicInterview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only catalogued non-read-only operations are accepted and that deletions must be explicitly requested, but says nothing about error behavior, argument validation, or what happens if the target operation fails.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the acceptance constraint immediately after. No filler, though the deletion clause is slightly awkward and could be folded into the constraint.

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 destructive, open-world dispatcher with a free-form arguments object, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition omits the discovery path for valid toolName values (get_tool_catalog) and any indication of the return shape or failure semantics.

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 0% for both parameters, and 'arguments' is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties true. The phrase 'with its schema-defined arguments' does convey that argument shape is determined by the referenced catalogued tool, which is genuine added meaning, but the description gives no hint about valid toolName values or how to discover them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (run one cataloged MagicInterview write operation) and scopes it to non-read-only operations, which cleanly separates it from read-only siblings like read_tool and get_tool_catalog. It is clear but never names a sibling for contrast.

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?

Gives a clear inclusion rule: only operations annotated readOnlyHint: false, with deletions permitted when explicitly requested. It provides context for when the tool applies, but never states the alternative for read operations or prerequisites such as looking up a valid toolName first.

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/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the returned opaque id remains stable across reconnects and token refreshes, which lets an agent safely cache it.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and one supporting detail. 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?

For a zero-param, read-only fetch with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and the one non-obvious trait (id stability). Return-value shape is handled by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the MagicInterview account'), scoped to 'this connection'. The resource is obviously distinct from the tool-management siblings, though it does not name or contrast them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never states when an agent should call get_profile versus any alternative, nor addresses prerequisites — it only describes what comes back.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the catalog includes read/write annotations for each operation, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like output format or rate limits.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 annotations covering safety and a schema listing category enums, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that omitting categories returns all operations, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and lack 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by category,' which vaguely maps to the 'categories' parameter but does not explain that it is an optional array with a max of 8 values, nor does it clarify the meaning of the enum categories.

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: browsing MagicInterview operations by category and returning names, descriptions, and read/write annotations. It uses a specific verb (Browse) and resource (operations), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like learn_tools or read_tool.

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 saying 'Browse available MagicInterview operations by category,' but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as learn_tools or read_tool.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read profile is covered. The description adds that retrieval is batched and limited to catalog-known names, but says nothing about behavior for unknown names or the cap of 25.

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 dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it packs several concepts together in a way that could be split for scannability.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the core contract is conveyed. However, gaps remain: the 'aspects' parameter is unmentioned, and behavioral edges (unknown names, 25-item cap) are left for the agent to discover.

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 0%, so the description carries more burden. It clarifies that toolNames must be exact operation names and that a batch is expected, and its list of retrievable data loosely maps to the 'aspects' enum, but it never names the aspects parameter or its defaults.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (descriptions, annotations, input schemas for operation names), and scopes it to a batch from the catalog. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_tool_catalog or read_tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 'exact MagicInterview operation names from the catalog' hints that names must be resolved first, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (get_tool_catalog, read_tool), and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'schema-validated' (arguments are checked) and 'account-scoped' (results are limited to the caller's account), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown toolName, validation failure modes, or result size/pagination.

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 with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

This is a dispatcher with a nested free-form 'arguments' object, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and six siblings. Given that complexity, the description omits the two things an agent most needs: how to discover a legal toolName and what the call returns or how failures surface.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. 'schema-validated operation' faintly implies toolName selects an operation whose arguments are validated, but it never says where valid toolName values come from (presumably get_tool_catalog/learn_tools) or that 'arguments' is a free-form pass-through object.

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 states a verb (Read) and a resource (one MagicInterview operation), and 'account-scoped' narrows scope. However, it never explains that its actual function is dispatching an arbitrary read operation named by toolName, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like magicinterview_app_write, read_tool, or execute_tool. Purpose is only partially inferable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over magicinterview_app_write or the generic read_tool/execute_tool siblings, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid operation name. The single sentence is purely descriptive, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description only adds 'schema-validated', which is thin, and it omits the key behavioral trait that the tool re-dispatches an arbitrary named tool with an arguments object. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds little beyond them.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance that the other dimensions penalize.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write tool with a nested free-form arguments object, an undocumented dispatch contract, and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. The description omits how to construct toolName/arguments, what counts as a valid change, and what the outcome looks like.

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 0% for both required parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'toolName' or 'arguments' at all. With low coverage and no compensating prose, the agent cannot learn from the description that arguments must satisfy the target tool's own 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?

The description names a verb ('Perform') and a resource ('MagicInterview change'), making it recognizable as a write-style tool, but 'change requested in the app' is vague about the actual effect and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling magicinterview_app_read. It does not convey that this is a dispatcher operating via toolName/arguments.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as magicinterview_app_read or execute_tool. The agent is left to infer that this is the write counterpart to the read tool purely from the name.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a routing constraint beyond the annotations: it will only accept operations flagged readOnlyHint true and never mutates workspace data. It says nothing about failure modes for non-read-only toolName values, which would have been useful.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the acceptance constraint. 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?

For a dispatcher with a nested arguments object and no output schema, an agent still lacks the crucial detail of where valid toolName values come from (the get_tool_catalog sibling). The description is adequate on safety but incomplete on the discovery workflow needed to call it correctly.

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 0% for two parameters, so the schema does not document toolName or arguments. The description only loosely implies that toolName must be a cataloged operation and that arguments are schema-defined, without naming the catalog source or the pass-through semantics of the free-form arguments object. Partial compensation at best.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run one cataloged read-only MagicInterview operation with its schema-defined arguments.' This distinguishes it from the sibling execute_tool by scope (read-only cataloged operations vs. general execution). It is clear, though 'MagicInterview operation' remains somewhat abstract without naming what the catalog contains.

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 gives a selection condition ('Accepts only operations annotated readOnlyHint: true'), which implies non-read operations must go elsewhere, but it never names execute_tool or any alternative explicitly. Usage is implied rather than stated as an explicit when/when-not rule.

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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: the result reflects 'this connected account's saved data' (account-scoped access) and that live audio/voice practice is unavailable here. It says nothing about return format or what 'opening' actually yields.

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, front-loaded with the action, no redundancy. The middle feature list ('what to say next, coding help, projects, conversations...') is somewhat promotional padding, but it does convey scope and stays within one sentence.

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-optional-parameter, no-output-schema read tool whose annotations cover safety, the description conveys scope and access model adequately. It still leaves the core semantics of 'open' and the purpose of conversationId undefined, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0% for the single optional 'conversationId' parameter, and the description never mentions it or explains what supplying it does (e.g. jump to a specific conversation). With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open your ... MagicInterview workspace') and enumerates the workspace contents, so the agent knows this surfaces a workspace view rather than raw data. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like magicinterview_app_read or magicinterview_app_write, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied ('Open your compact ... workspace'), with no explicit when-to-use versus magicinterview_app_read/write or execute_tool. The sentence 'Live audio and voice practice open in the full app' is a useful when-not boundary, but no alternative tool is named for that case.

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