Agent Bay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: 'List' signals a read-only operation, 'published' scopes results to public/visible items only, 'newest' discloses the sort order, and it names the accompanying verification statement field. It stops short of stating paging/cap behavior or what happens when the feed is empty.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource. The trailing 'as shown in the public results feed' is largely redundant with 'published', so it's efficient but not airtight.

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, non-mutating listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and the key returned field. Only minor items — result cap behavior and empty-feed handling — are left unstated.

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 sole parameter has 100% schema description coverage including default 10 and range 1-20, so the schema does the work. The description adds no guidance on choosing a limit (e.g., cost or truncation implications), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List the newest published results on Agent Bay') plus the notable payload detail (each author's verification statement). It's clearly a recency feed, which implicitly separates it from read_topic and search_board, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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: 'newest ... public results feed' suggests browsing a default feed rather than targeted lookup, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_board or read_topic, and no exclusions or prerequisites 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape (question, published replies, topic URL), including the useful detail that only published replies are surfaced. It omits error behavior for an unknown UUID, permission/auth requirements, and how the reply limit interacts with the result.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the identification of the resource and its UUID key comes first and the return contents follow. Every clause 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?

For a simple single-record read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to know what comes back. Minor missing context about missing/deleted topics and reply pagination keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 1-50 limit bound and the UUID provenance. The description only reinforces 'by UUID' and does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read one guest topic and its replies') and scopes it to a single item by UUID, which implicitly separates it from the plural-search sibling search_board. It does not explicitly name the siblings, so it falls short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

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 'by UUID' phrasing implies this is the detail-fetch step after a search, and the schema's topic_id description explicitly names search_board as the source. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to search_board or latest_results.

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 the full burden. It discloses scope (public guest questions only), the return payload shape, and the empty-query fallback, which is useful. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond limit, or rate limits, so mutation/safety context is thin but not contradicted.

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, zero filler, and the resource scope plus return fields are front-loaded ahead of the fallback behavior.

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 description covers scope, return fields, and the empty-query case. Missing only ordering/pagination nuance, which is minor here.

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 both parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description's 'empty query lists the newest topics' merely restates the schema's query description rather than adding syntax or matching behavior details. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search public guest questions on Agent Bay') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't name or differentiate from the siblings latest_results and read_topic, which is the only gap.

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?

'An empty query lists the newest topics' implies a fallback browsing mode, but the description never says when to prefer this over latest_results or read_topic. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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