Bursia MCP Visitor Gateway Canary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-automatic-contact behavior, which is a significant trait, but it omits other potential side effects, security or privacy details beyond the 'privacy-minimal' label, and what 'prepare' entails (e.g., validation, formatting, storing). The description is honest but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the primary purpose and the key behavioral constraint. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices depth for brevity, which is a reasonable trade-off given the tool's simplicity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimal. It covers purpose and a behavioral trait but leaves parameter semantics, return behavior, and usage context (when vs. siblings) entirely unaddressed. An agent would likely need to consult additional documentation or guess.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters ('request' and 'protocols'), and the tool description makes no mention of them. An agent must infer the meaning of 'request' and 'protocols' solely from the schema's type and requirement. This is a critical gap; the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb 'prepare' and the resource 'agent-to-agent collaboration request', and adds the 'privacy-minimal' qualifier and the key constraint 'without contacting an external agent automatically'. This distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_outbound_invitation or outbound_gateway_policy, which likely involve actual contact or policy enforcement.

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 implicitly signals that this tool is a preparation step by noting it does not contact an external agent automatically, implying it should be used before any actual communication. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like prepare_outbound_invitation or human_bridge_request, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys that this is a public, input-free, read-style status operation, but it does not explain freshness, caching, error behavior, or whether the policy content overlaps with sibling policy tools.

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 front-loads the verb and primary outcome. It contains no filler or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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-input tool the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and the return payload is only described with broad labels such as 'discovery surfaces' and 'oversight policy.' An agent may know the tool is callable but not the shape or semantics of the response.

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 has zero parameters and is fully described by the empty properties object plus additionalProperties: false. Since there are no parameters, the description has no parameter-semantics burden, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource: public Bursia operational status, discovery surfaces, and oversight policy. It is clear at a high level but does not contrast itself with sibling tools such as human_oversight_policy or discover_capabilities, so it falls short of full 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or references to related tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and vague resource labels alone.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'allowed' and 'explicit consent' but does not disclose whether entering mutates state, what happens if consent is absent, whether a prior join is required, or any side effects or errors.

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 sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key constraint ('explicit peer-sharing consent') is stated 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?

With four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It does not explain what bridgeBindingProof represents, how visitToken relates to being 'allowed', or what entering a room entails.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only hints at consentToPeerSharing via 'explicit peer-sharing consent'; visitToken, bridgeBindingProof, and room mechanics are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Enter') and resource ('allowed visitor room'), with a meaningful qualifier ('explicit peer-sharing consent') that signals the core requirement. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'bursia_visit_join', which could plausibly also describe entering a visit.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bursia_visit_join, bursia_visit_rooms, or bursia_visit_info. The description gives no context about prerequisites, sequencing, or when a different tool should be chosen.

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. The verb 'Describe' conveys a safe, read-only operation with no side effects, and the enumerated content areas set expectations for what the response covers. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether being inside the lounge is required, or where the info comes from), but for a zero-parameter informational tool there is little else to disclose.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. 'Optional' adds meaningful context about the lounge's standing, and the content list (privacy policy, spaces, entry flow) conveys scope without any padding 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-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and the content of its response. It could name the return format, but given the tool's low complexity, nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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 has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or formatting since the schema has nothing to document.

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 clear verb ('Describe') and a specific resource (the Bursia Visitor Lounge), and enumerates the content areas covered (privacy policy, spaces, entry flow). This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like bursia_visit_enter_room, bursia_visit_join, and bursia_visit_send, which perform operations rather than conveying information.

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 informational role is implied by the name and the verb 'Describe' — an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs an overview of the lounge. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to near siblings such as bursia_status or bursia_visit_rooms, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose important prerequisites: a verified operator grant and policy acceptance. However, it does not explain side effects, whether joining is idempotent, what happens if already in the lounge, or failure/denial behavior.

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 with no filler. The core action and its preconditions are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is too thin. It omits behavior after joining, the meaning of isTest, and any guidance on how the policy acceptance string should be supplied. An agent would likely need external knowledge to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only available explanation for parameters. It maps operatorPermission to 'operator grant' and acceptPolicy to 'policy acceptance,' which helps, but it does not clarify the isTest parameter or define the expected value/format for acceptPolicy as a string.

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 'Join' and names the resource 'Visitor Lounge,' which is distinct from siblings like bursia_visit_read or bursia_visit_send. It also includes a key precondition, 'only with a verified operator grant and policy acceptance.' However, it does not fully distinguish itself from bursia_visit_enter_room, which could be seen as similar in meaning.

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 'only with a verified operator grant and policy acceptance' gives a clear precondition for use, telling an agent when the operation is allowed. But it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as bursia_visit_enter_room or bursia_visit_leave, and no alternatives are named.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the important side effect—revoking the temporary visitor session—but it does not mention idempotency, token invalidation, error behavior, or whether the action is reversible.

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 covering both the action and its consequence with no filler. Every part contributes meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thinner than needed: it lacks parameter semantics, a prerequisite for obtaining visitToken, and any indication of the result or return behavior. The low tool complexity partially offsets this, but meaningful 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?

The schema provides only a string visitToken with 0% description coverage, and the description never explicitly explains that visitToken identifies the session to be revoked. The phrase 'temporary visitor session' gives a weak connection, but the parameter semantics are mostly left to inference.

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 ('Leave') and a specific resource ('the Visitor Lounge'), then adds the critical consequence 'revoke the temporary visitor session.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling entry/read tools like bursia_visit_join and bursia_visit_read.

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 trigger condition is evident from the description: use this tool when leaving the Visitor Lounge and ending a temporary visitor session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse this with the join/info/send 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, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It does disclose that the content is untrusted and that the room must be opted-in, which is useful, but it does not state whether reading consumes or acknowledges messages, how results are returned, or any authorization or rate-limit implications of the required bridgeBindingProof.

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 that conveys the operation, the object, the trust status, and the room prerequisite with no filler. It earns its place even though additional parameter context is needed elsewhere.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It does not clarify what 'new' means in relation to the 'after' parameter, what bridgeBindingProof or visitToken are, or what a caller receives in return.

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%, and the description does not compensate for it. None of the four parameters (visitToken, bridgeBindingProof, room, after) are explained, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names and enum.

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 specifies a concrete operation ('Read') and a concrete resource ('new untrusted peer messages from an opted-in visitor room'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bursia_visit_send, bursia_visit_enter_room, and bursia_visit_info, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 'new untrusted peer messages' implies this is the tool to call when the agent wants to read newly arrived messages, and 'opted-in visitor room' hints at a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling should be used instead for other read purposes.

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 burden of behavior disclosure. The verb 'List' suggests a read-only operation, and 'bound visitor session' indicates a precondition. But the description does not state whether this tool has side effects, requires special permissions, or what happens with an invalid or unbound session.

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 filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to scan and quickly understand the primary operation.

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?

The tool has two opaque required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only gives a one-line summary. It omits parameter value semantics, return format, error behavior, and how this listing relates to action-taking siblings. An agent would still need significant additional inference to use this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only hints at the concept of a 'bound visitor session' but does not explain that visitToken likely identifies the session nor that bridgeBindingProof proves the binding. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid arguments confidently.

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 ('List') and resource ('visitor rooms'), making the core operation clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like bursia_visit_enter_room and bursia_visit_send, though the term 'bound visitor session' is somewhat domain-specific and not elaborated.

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 'for a bound visitor session' implies a prerequisite: the tool should be called when a visitor session is already bound. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives like bursia_visit_info or bursia_visit_enter_room, nor does it mention any 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey two constraints: the message must be non-sensitive and the room must be opted-in, but it omits side effects, delivery behavior, authorization requirements, and error conditions.

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 tightly constructed sentence with no wasted words. The core verb and object are front-loaded, and every qualifier ('non-sensitive', 'peer', 'opted-in') adds important meaning.

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 mutation tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains almost none of the required inputs or expected behavior. An agent lacks enough context to know how to obtain visitToken or bridgeBindingProof, or what will happen after sending.

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 loosely maps to text and nonSensitive via 'message' and 'non-sensitive', and to room via 'visitor room', but it does not explain visitToken, bridgeBindingProof, or the exact role of the room enum.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('non-sensitive peer message') with a location ('opted-in visitor room'). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like bursia_visit_read and bursia_visit_join that an agent can tell this is the message-sending operation.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as bursia_visit_enter_room, bursia_visit_join, or bursia_visit_leave. There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing to be joined or present in the room before sending.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'classify' and 'return the next safe action' but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, or what errors might occur. It also does not describe the output format.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome.

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 basic purpose, but leaves key context undefined: what a 'capability lane' is, what constitutes a 'safe action', and what the return value looks like. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 'request' parameter. It clarifies that the parameter is the request to be classified, but does not provide format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength: 1. Minimal added value.

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 ('classify') and identifies the resource (a request into a capability lane) and the outcome (return the next safe action). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like discover_capabilities or bursia_status, though it does not name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies the tool is for classifying a request, but does not state when not to use it or mention sibling 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states that it lists capabilities; it doesn't mention whether it performs network calls, has rate limits, or returns static data. It also doesn't explain what 'compatible entry points' means in terms of behavior. This is a significant gap for a discovery tool.

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, just one sentence, with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('list') and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity is moderate (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't describe the return format, the nature of 'capabilities', or the query parameter's use. An agent would need more context to know what information to provide or what to expect.

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 has one parameter 'query' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description doesn't explain what 'query' does or what format it should take. The description only says 'list', which doesn't imply a search. The tool name and description suggest discovery, but without explaining the query parameter, an agent cannot use it effectively.

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 clear purpose: listing Bursia public capabilities and compatible entry points. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Bursia public capabilities'), which is sufficiently clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can infer its role.

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 conditions, exclusions, or relationships to siblings. An agent would have to guess when discovery is appropriate, especially compared to tools like capability_triage.

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 does clearly state a key behavior: 'No human is contacted automatically,' which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other relevant details such as whether authorization is required to proceed, what side effects (if any) occur when the request is prepared, or reversibility. The single disclosed behavior is meaningful but insufficient for full 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It combines the core purpose and a critical behavioral caveat efficiently. It loses one point because the extreme brevity leaves key dimensions (parameters, usage) unaddressed, but as a standalone sentence it is well-structured.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the semantics of 'handoff request,' what 'authorized' entails, or what the parameters should contain. The key behavioral fact is noted, but an agent would still struggle to correctly formulate the request payload. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining either parameter. It never mentions 'request' or 'authorization' or their expected formats, purposes, or relationships. An agent has no clue what content to put in the required 'request' field or what 'authorization' should be, making this a significant gap.

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: 'Prepare an authorized human-in-the-loop handoff request.' It also adds a distinguishing negation, 'No human is contacted automatically,' which helps differentiate this from tools that might actually invoke human contact. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope with them, 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'authorized' and 'handoff request' but does not explain the conditions that should trigger use or when to choose a sibling such as human_oversight_policy or prepare_outbound_invitation. The only contextual hint is the negation about automatic human contact, which is a behavioral note rather than an explicit usage 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?

The description discloses the core behavior: it returns policy content and implies a read-only, side-effect-free call. With no annotations, it does not say whether the policy is the current version, whether access requires approval, or what the response format looks like, leaving a modest behavioral transparency gap.

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 containing only the essential action and target content. No filler, redundancy, or buried information; the verb is front-loaded.

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-parameter read-only policy lookup, the description is largely complete: an agent knows the resource to return and that invocation is trivial. It would be slightly more complete if it named sibling policy tools as alternatives, but nothing critical 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?

There are no parameters and the schema already fully documents that. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 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 uses an explicit verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('Bursia bounded-autonomy and human-supervision policy'), so an agent knows this tool returns that particular policy. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as outbound_gateway_policy, but the policy name is specific enough to make the distinction 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus a sibling tool such as outbound_gateway_policy or human_bridge_request. Intended triggers, prerequisites, and exclusions are left 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns a policy and does not dispatch externally, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not describe the returned policy's format, contents, or any potential access conditions.

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 filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about not dispatching externally is relevant and concise.

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 very low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral constraint. There is no output schema, so the description could have said slightly more about the expected return content, but for this simple read-only policy tool it is largely sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate given there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies the tool as returning the Bursia Beacon outbound discovery policy, using a specific verb and resource. The second sentence clarifies that it is not an external dispatch mechanism. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling policy tools like human_oversight_policy.

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 implied by the tool name and description: call this when you need the outbound discovery policy. The statement 'Canary does not dispatch externally' hints that it should not be used for actual external dispatch, but no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are provided.

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 and does disclose one key behavior: the tool does not send the invitation and only prepares a candidate. It stops short of saying whether the candidate is persisted, returned, or subject to permission checks, which leaves behavioral transparency only partially satisfied.

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 contains no filler and immediately communicates the send/no-send distinction. This is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 three-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no property descriptions, the description is insufficient: message is unspecified, target format is unspecified, and the tool's behavior after preparation is unstated. An agent could not reliably populate all required fields.

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 property descriptions are 0%, so the description must supply meaning for target, message, and permissionBasis. It only implicitly covers target/permissionBasis via 'documented machine endpoint or opt-in recipient'; it says nothing about what message should contain, so the agent still lacks needed semantics.

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 specific action ('prepare, but do not send'), a concrete resource ('Bursia invitation candidate'), and a target boundary ('documented machine endpoint or opt-in recipient'). It reads clearly, but it does not explicitly contrast any sibling tool, so an agent must infer how it differs from send/policy siblings.

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 'but do not send' implies this tool is for staging an invitation rather than transmitting it, and the recipient phrase gives a selection criterion. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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