casa

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses conditional behavior (metadata only for locally stored references) and describes return content. No side effects mentioned but tool is clearly a read-only query.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, no wasted words. Structure is clear and immediately informative.

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 single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient depth. It explains exactly what is returned and the edge case for non-local references.

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?

Only one parameter 'reference' with schema description 'Casa reference from casa_store.' Description adds context that metadata is for this reference and explains the conditional return. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; description adds value beyond 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 tool returns metadata for a reference, listing specific fields (name, size, content type, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (casa_pricing, casa_retrieve, casa_store) by focusing on metadata retrieval.

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?

Description explains that full metadata is only available for references stored through this Casa instance, otherwise only the gateway URL is returned. This provides clear context on when to expect complete vs. partial results, though it doesn't explicitly 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares 'No args' and describes the return content (pricing, payment, durability, privacy). For a read-only info tool with no side effects, this is transparent enough.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 without an output schema, the description completely explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 is justified.

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 'Return' and the resource 'Casa's pricing, payment, durability and privacy model'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by recommending it as a first step to learn about storing and privacy trade-offs.

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 first to learn how storing works and what the privacy trade-offs are', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It lacks explicit when-not usage but the guidance is clear and 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the server cannot decrypt and returns base64, which is important behavioral context. However, it omits potential behaviors like error handling for missing references or size limitations.

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 concise, consisting of two main sentences followed by an alternative usage sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient without extraneous information.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the output format, and a key use-case scenario (encrypted data).

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 'reference' is described in the schema itself. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides: 'Casa reference (Swarm 64-hex) from casa_store.'

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 fetches raw stored bytes for a reference. It specifies 'RAW' and mentions it's free. While it implicitly distinguishes from storage and info tools, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like casa_store or casa_info.

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 tells when to use the tool (to fetch raw bytes) and when not to (if needing automatic decryption, use the local casa-mcp stdio server). This provides clear guidance on 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, description fully discloses behavioral traits: cost ($0.01), privacy implications (plaintext visible to server, encrypted_blob is zero-knowledge), payment requirement, and error response (402 quote). No contradictions.

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 paragraph efficiently covers purpose, cost, privacy options, payment, and alternative. Front-loaded with key info, but could use minor structural breaks for readability.

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?

Adequately covers input semantics, privacy, payment, and error handling. Lacks output format description, but given no output schema, the explanation of error (402) and cost is sufficient for a store action.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, but description adds critical context about privacy preferences and payment authorization beyond schema definitions, enhancing usability.

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 'Store bytes on Casa' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like casa_info, casa_pricing, and casa_retrieve by focusing on storage 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use encrypted_blob versus plaintext for privacy, mentions payment_header requirement, and suggests an alternative tool (casa-mcp stdio server) for automatic encryption and payment.

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