Velven

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the sign-in gating and the interactive sign-in prompt, which an agent must anticipate before invoking.

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, the core action front-loaded before the auth caveat, with no wasted clauses. The sign-in consequence sentence is slightly wordy but carries genuine behavioral 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?

For a no-param, read-only list tool with an output schema already defining the return shape, the description covers purpose and the one operational caveat (auth). Nothing essential is missing, though it does not describe result size or pagination.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field enumeration describes output rather than input and does not conflict with the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the spaces of the signed-in Velven account') and enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, status, hosting, page). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling verbs publish, rollback, search_docs, and versions.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Needs sign-in') and the consequence of calling without it (the app prompts the person to sign in). It does not name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but for a zero-parameter account-scoped list tool the guidance given 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?

Annotations give the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavior: default is a private preview, prod:true goes live within seconds, unsigned publishing returns a claim token that retains the page, and update path differs by auth. Auth needs and default outcome are covered; no rate limits or failure modes are mentioned.

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?

Purpose and the signed-in/not-signed-in distinction are front-loaded, and each sentence carries workflow information. The prose is dense and a bit run-on (the prod clause is embedded mid-sentence), but there is little outright 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 14-parameter tool with nested file objects, an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the key workflows and defaults. It stops short of explaining version semantics or the interaction between claim and signed-in publishing in full, but is adequate to call 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 100% with all 14 parameters documented in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The description only restates that title and devices are needed for a new space and that space/claim select the update path, adding no syntax or format 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 states a specific verb (publish) and resource (a space/page) plus scope details: one HTML page or a small file set up to 3 MB. An agent can tell this creates or updates a hosted space, but it never names the sibling tools (rollback, versions, my_spaces) to disambiguate the management-vs-publish boundary.

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 clearly branches the usage by auth state (signed in = private preview by default, or prod:true for live; not signed in = unlisted page with a claim token) and by new vs update (title+devices for new, space or claim for update). What's missing is explicit guidance against alternatives like rollback or versions.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the change takes effect immediately ('goes live at once'), the candidate set is restricted, and sign-in is required. It does not say what happens to the previously live version, but the addition is substantive.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the eligibility constraint and the auth prerequisite in descending order of importance.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema and a complete annotation set, the description only needs to supply the human-judgment details — eligibility, immediacy, auth — and it does all three. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (space slug, version number). The description adds eligibility semantics the schema cannot express — only versions flagged rollback: true in the versions listing are valid inputs — which meaningfully narrows how 'version' should be interpreted.

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

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

States a precise verb+resource: 'Make an earlier version of a hosted space live again.' The eligibility clause '(rollback: true in versions)' implicitly separates it from publish (which pushes a brand-new version) and versions (which lists them), so an agent can route 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?

Gives a hard precondition for use — only a version that was previously live ('rollback: true') may be selected — plus the auth requirement ('Needs sign-in'). It never names an explicit alternative tool for the other case, so it stops just short of full when/when-not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds only that results are 'best matching sections with links' — useful but thin, with no detail on relevance ranking or how results behave when nothing matches.

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 purpose verb+resource leads the sentence, followed by a compact topic inventory and the return shape. The long comma-separated topic list is information-dense but borders on a catalogue; still, every clause carries routing 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it briefly signals the return shape anyway. Scope is well covered for a simple two-parameter search tool; only ranking behavior is unspecified.

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 100%, so both query and limit are already documented in the schema, including the default of 5. The topic enumeration hints at useful query phrasing but adds no syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Velven's documentation), then enumerates the covered topic areas (publishing, velven.json, CLI, SDK, agent API). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools my_spaces, publish, rollback, and versions, which are all operations rather than documentation lookup.

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 topic list and the read-only nature of the tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus reading docs another way, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer 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?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, it discloses ordering (newest first), the full status vocabulary, that refused versions carry a reason, and that authentication is required. This is real operational context, though pagination/limits are unstated.

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 the core action, and the parenthetical status list earns its space because no enum exists in the schema to convey those states.

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?

Auth requirement, ordering, status semantics, and rollback relevance are all covered, and an output schema exists so return shapes need not be re-explained. Only pagination/volume behavior 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single 'space' slug parameter has a pattern and example — so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'List a hosted space's versions, newest first.' It enumerates the returned attributes (number, status, size, rollback-pickability) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the rollback sibling by flagging which versions rollback can act on.

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 clear context for use: reviewing version state and determining what rollback can pick, plus the prerequisite 'Needs sign-in'. It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives (my_spaces, publish, search_docs), so it stops short of a 5.

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