Agent Factory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Lists' and adds important context that the contracts are 'draft, simulation-only,' signaling they are not for production use. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond a simple label.

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 worded sentence. Every word earns its place, clearly stating the action and the object without any filler or repetition.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (a list of services and contracts). It could perhaps mention that this catalog serves as a prerequisite for choosing a service, but for a simple list operation, it is reasonably 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately makes no claims about parameters since there are none.

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 exact function: listing the three Gate A services and their draft, simulation-only contracts. It uses a specific verb ('lists') with a specific resource, and the subject matter distinguishes it from the sibling execution and job tools.

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 does not explicitly say 'use this before executing a simulation' or mention any conditions under which it should or shouldn't be used. Sibling tool names hint at different purposes, but the description does not articulate the relationship.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool queues work (asynchronous), is deterministic, and explicitly does not handle on-chain payments. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the basic action, though it omits details like error behavior or 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?

The description is just two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 a nested input object, an enum service_id, and an idempotency key, the description is minimal. It lacks information about expected input structure, meaning of service_id values, return value/format, or error conditions. The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant.

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 should explain the parameters. However, it mentions none of the three parameters (service_id, input, idempotency_key). The enum values (api-paramedic, paperlab-receipt, visibility-snapshot) are opaque, and the structure of 'input' is 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 uses a specific verb ('Queues') and identifies the resource ('a deterministic Gate A simulation'). It also clarifies a key limitation ('never accepts or settles an on-chain payment'), which helps distinguish it from potential payment-related tools. This clearly states what the tool does.

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 the tool is used for queueing simulations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools (e.g., agent_factory_catalog, agent_factory_job). The note about not accepting payments provides a negative constraint but no positive guidance or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a read and mentions the scoped access token, which is useful context. However, it does not describe response format, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects untold.

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. Every word adds value: 'Reads' specifies the action, 'one simulation job' the resource, and 'scoped access token' the authorization context.

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

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

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description is largely sufficient: the schema documents job_id thoroughly. However, it lacks any mention of the return value or error conditions, and it could explicitly refer to the sibling tools for listing/executing, so minor 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 defines job_id with UUID format and required status, but the description does not reference the parameter at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning or usage, but it only vaguely refers to 'one simulation job' without connecting it to job_id.

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 ('Reads') and the resource ('one simulation job'), which distinguishes it from siblings like agent_factory_execute_simulation. The phrase 'using its scoped access token' adds context about the access mechanism, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving a specific simulation job by ID, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over agent_factory_catalog (e.g., listing jobs) or agent_factory_execute_simulation. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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