Hiveround

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

Reveals critical behaviors: auto-promotion on both sides, idempotency from same side, and API key requirement. However, lacks specifics on permissions (e.g., role requirements) or error states (e.g., if already committed).

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?

Three sentences pack essential information without redundancy. No fluff, each sentence adds unique 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?

Covers key outcomes (status promotion, idempotency) given the simple tool with one param and no output schema. Missing error conditions or return value details, but acceptable for this complexity level.

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?

Single parameter 'commitment_id' with schema description 'Commitment UUID.' Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Clearly identifies the action 'Acknowledge' and resource 'commitment', specifies actors (founder/investor). Distinguishes from siblings like submit_commitment (creation) and update_commitment_status (manual status change) but does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

Describes the effect of double acknowledgment (auto-promotion) and idempotency, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_commitment_status or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation that returns a full project listing with the founder's GitHub handle. For a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention potential error handling (e.g., invalid slug).

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 of 14 words, front-loading the core action and key output. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could elaborate on the full listing contents, but the mention of 'full project listing' combined with the founder's GitHub handle is sufficient for most use cases.

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 only parameter 'slug' has 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies it is used to identify the project, but provides no format or examples. While it adds meaning beyond the schema, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema 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 tool retrieves a full project listing by slug, including the founder's GitHub handle. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects and search_projects by specifying a unique identifier (slug) and indicating it returns a comprehensive result.

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 when a project slug is available and full details are needed. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides enough guidance for an agent to differentiate.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists commitments where the user is investor or founder and requires an API key. It does not mention any destructive behavior (implied read-only) but lacks details on response format, pagination, or edge cases. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate 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 clear sentence plus a parenthetical authentication note. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with core purpose. No superfluous words, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and filters but omits response structure, pagination, or meaning of status values. For a simple list tool with 4 parameters, it is partially complete; additional details would improve usability.

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 50% (role and slug have descriptions, limit and status do not). The description adds meaning by listing filterable fields (slug, role, status) but does not address the 'limit' parameter or provide syntax details beyond the schema. It adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'commitments', and the scope 'where you're either the investor or the founder'. It also mentions filtering options (project slug, role, status) and distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools by specifying the commitment context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (listing commitments for own roles) and implies filtering options. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for similar listings, but the sibling tools do not include alternative commitment listing methods, so the guidance is sufficient.

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 provided. The description covers basic behavior (read-only listing, requires API key, fields returned) but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or 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?

Two sentences front-load the main purpose and filters, with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers key aspects (what is returned, filters). Could mention pagination or empty results, but adequate.

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 67%. The description adds context on using role and unread_only filters, going beyond the schema, though limit lacks description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists intro threads the user is party to, with specific details (counterparty, message count, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like read_intro_thread and send_intro_message.

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 (to view intro threads with optional filters) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the maximum return count (25) but omits details about authentication, rate limits, ordering beyond 'newest', side effects (read-only assumed), and how parameters affect behavior (e.g., whether 'stage' overrides the 'open' filter).

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, concise but lacking depth. It front-loads the action but remains under-informative given the missing parameter details. It could include more structure without becoming verbose.

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 two parameters (both optional) and no output schema, the description should explain parameters and output. It only covers the max return count. The ordering, filtering behavior by 'stage', and response format are unspecified, leaving the agent underinformed.

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. It does not mention the 'limit' or 'stage' parameters at all, except indirectly implying a default max of 25. No explanation of what 'stage' does or how it interacts with the 'open' criterion.

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 specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('newest open projects raising on Hiveround'), and a constraint ('Returns at most 25'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_projects' and 'get_project' by focusing on a predefined set of newest open projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for browsing recent open projects but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_projects'. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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 disclose all behavioral traits. It notes 'requires API key' and implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, or any other side effects. Adequate but lacking 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?

Single sentence plus parenthetical note, extremely concise. All information is front-loaded and no redundant text.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters (partially), and a requirement. Could mention that it returns a list or the structure of each item, but overall 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 description explains two parameters (tag, stage) as optional filters but does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its role in controlling result count. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter detail would be beneficial.

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 specifies the verb ('Return'), the resource ('your pipeline — every project you're watching'), and the data returned (stage, tags, raise size, timestamp). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects and watch_project.

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?

It mentions optional filtering by stage or tag, providing context for parameter use. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this 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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of marking the thread as read and the auth requirement (requires API key). This is sufficient for a read tool with a mutation side effect.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and includes essential behavioral notes in the second 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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, side effect, and parameter source. It does not describe return format or error conditions, but these are not critical for a simple read tool.

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 100% coverage and describes intro_id as 'Intro UUID'. The description adds context that it is returned by list_intros or request_intro, which adds meaning beyond the 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'intro thread', clearly stating it reads all messages. It distinguishes from siblings like list_intros (lists intros) and send_intro_message (sends messages).

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 use when you are a party to a specific intro thread and want to mark it as read. It provides implicit context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like send_intro_message.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that an email is sent to the founder with the investor's GitHub handle, adding value beyond the input schema. However, it omits side effects, authentication details, and potential rate limits or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and key behavior efficiently, though could be slightly expanded to cover return value or prerequisites without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or intro ID), nor does it specify prerequisites beyond API key. For a simple request tool, this is moderately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds the character limit for 'message' (max 2000 chars), which is not in the schema. For 'slug', it merely restates the schema description. The added constraint improves parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Request' and resource 'intro to a project's founder', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_intro_message' or 'list_intros'. It also explains the effect (founder receives email with GitHub handle).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for initiating an intro but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'send_intro_message' or 'read_intro_thread'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context beyond 'requires API key'.

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 burden. It describes a search operation (likely read-only) but does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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: first clearly states core purpose and scope, second lists optional filters. No redundant words, efficient and 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?

No output schema, so description does not specify return format or content. For a search tool, returning project details is implied but not confirmed. Adequate but leaves gap in understanding what the response contains.

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 has 4 parameters with 50% description coverage. The description mentions 'stage' and 'max raise size in USD' as optional filters, adding context to those two params. However, 'limit' and 'query' have schema descriptions (query's is vague) and the description does not elaborate further. Adequate but not outstanding.

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 searches open projects by keyword across multiple fields (name, one-liner, description, sector) and lists optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and list_projects (all projects).

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 using this tool for keyword-based project discovery with optional filtering, contrasting with specific project retrieval (get_project) or full listing (list_projects). It could be more explicit about when to choose this over others but provides adequate 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the other party receives an email notification and that an API key is required. This covers important behavioral aspects. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but the disclosed info is sufficient for the tool's nature.

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 plus a parenthetical, with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use, email notification, and auth requirement. It lacks mention of success/error responses or idempotency, but these are not critical for a simple send tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context ('existing intro thread you're a party to') that reinforces the intro_id parameter's scope, but does not provide additional syntactic or format details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('existing intro thread'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'request_intro' (which creates a new thread) and 'read_intro_thread' (which reads messages). It also conditions usage on being a party to the thread.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to follow up after request_intro or to keep a conversation moving', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies not to start new intros. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the implied sibling context.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses status changes based on terms presence and that commitment is incomplete until both sides acknowledge. Lacks side-effect details but sufficient for safe usage.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second explains behavior, third adds caveat and authentication. Efficient and 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?

Covers purpose, behavior, and auth. With 6 parameters including nested objects, description touches on key behaviors but does not explain all parameters or return value. Acceptable given no 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 coverage is high (83%), and description adds meaning: explains how 'terms' affects initial status and that 'amount_usd' is whole dollars. Provides additional context over 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?

Clearly states it records an investor's intent-to-fund. Differentiates behavior based on terms parameter, which helps distinguish from sibling tools like acknowledge_commitment or update_commitment_status.

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?

Explains when to use (record intent), and notes that founder acknowledgment is needed for status progression. Mentions API key requirement. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical role-gating behavior, but does not cover invalid state transitions, error handling, idempotency, or return values. Some behavioral gaps remain.

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, first is clear purpose, second adds critical detail. No fluff. Information 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?

Given no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description explains the role-gating well but lacks details on valid status transitions beyond the mentioned ones, and does not describe return behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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 low (33%: only 'notes' has description). The description adds context about status values and role restrictions on transitions, but does not fully explain 'commitment_id' semantics or the exact meaning of each status value. Baseline is 3 due to partial compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change a commitment's status.' It specifies the resource (commitment) and the action (change status), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_commitment' or 'acknowledge_commitment' by detailing role-gated actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit role-based usage rules: only investors can 'withdraw', only founders can mark 'funded', and either side can move between 'soft_circled/term_sheet/committed'. It also mentions 'requires API key' as prerequisite. It does not explicitly list alternatives but the context is clear.

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 bears full responsibility. It discloses that an API key is required and that the tool mutates state (moves stage, appends notes), but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or what happens if only notes are provided without stage.

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, both front-loaded with key actions. No redundant words; every part 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality but omits behavioral details (e.g., response format, error conditions) and does not fully compensate for the parameter schema gaps.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning by linking 'stage' to moving and 'notes' to appending. However, it does not explain the enum values for stage or the format of notes beyond 'append'.

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 with specific verbs: 'move a watched project to a new pipeline stage' and 'append a note'. It also mentions a prerequisite (project must already be in pipeline), which helps differentiate from sibling tools like 'watch_project'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating an existing watched project's stage or notes. It includes a prerequisite ('project must already be in your pipeline'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that notes are appended to the watch's note log and that an API key is required, but lacks details on mutability, idempotency, or other side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential details (stages, notes behavior, auth requirement). Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

While the description covers key aspects, it lacks guidance on return values or differentiation from the sibling tool update_watch. Given no output schema and multiple siblings, more details on context of use would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%; the description adds value by listing the enum values for stage and clarifying that notes are appended to the note log, supplementing the schema descriptions for slug and notes. Stage parameter gains context beyond the 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 clearly states the action 'Add a project to your pipeline' or update its stage, with specific verbs and resource. It lists the valid stages and distinguishes its function from sibling tools like list_watches or update_watch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for adding/updating a project in the pipeline but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_watch. No guidance on when not to use it or contextual exclusions.

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