VibeHacker

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds exact-single-item retrieval by slug, but it does not disclose not-found behavior or response details. Overall, it is consistent with annotations and provides modest behavioral context beyond them.

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 one short sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the lookup criterion 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?

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, and single parameter, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could mention what happens when no product is found, but that is not essential for a simple read-only getter.

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 clarify the parameter. It does so by identifying the slug as the product lookup key, which meaningfully extends the bare schema definition of a string with minLength 1. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 operation: retrieve one product by slug. It is not a tautology and differentiates from broader tools like search_products, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from preview_product. The resource and lookup mechanism are clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as search_products or preview_product. The phrase 'by slug' implies exact-key retrieval, but no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results include product counts, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or return shape. This is modest added value beyond annotations.

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 wasted words. It conveys the action and the key output feature 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only list operation with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It indicates the result includes product counts; only minor details such as response format or sorting are absent, but they are not critical for invoking this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers inputs by definition and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 and resource: 'List categories with product counts.' It clearly communicates the operation and the key output, and it is easily distinguishable from the product-focused sibling 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 implies usage: call when you need categories with product counts. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. With no overlapping siblings, this is adequate but not explicit.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful requirement that a token is needed and clarifies the scope as the caller's own submissions, going beyond the annotation-only picture.

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 that states the core capability, the resource scope, the output, and the auth requirement without any filler. Every word contributes 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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the output dimension (review status), and the auth requirement. The rich annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists, but the description sufficiently indicates what the caller will get.

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% via an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, the description carries no parameter burden, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 action ('List'), a resource ('products you submitted'), and the key output ('review status'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_products or get_product, which target all products or a single product.

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 for viewing your own submissions and their review status, and notes that a token is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful auth-related requirement ('Requires a token') and clarifies that no submission occurs, which aligns with the read-only annotation. No contradictions found.

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 wasted words: the first front-loads the action and scope, and the second adds a necessary precondition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the definition is mostly adequate, but it lacks any mention of what the tool returns or what a 'preview' actually provides. There is no output schema, so the description should compensate, but it does not describe the result of calling this tool. The token requirement is mentioned but not elaborated.

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, but it never explains what 'url' refers to or how it relates to the listing being previewed. The parameter name and format are self-evident, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema. It also introduces a token requirement that is absent from the input schema, which could confuse the agent about the expected input.

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 ('draft') and resource ('a listing'), and explicitly contrasts with 'without submitting it', which distinguishes this tool from the sibling submit_product. The title 'Preview a listing' reinforces the action. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it deliberately avoids.

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 'without submitting it' provides clear context that this is a dry-run or preview action rather than a publication action. It implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions beyond not submitting. A small but useful gap.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint ('published' only), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when no match is found.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and matching fields front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting usage and limit information, but nothing written is wasted.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose but omits the type filter semantics, limit/pagination behavior, and return shape. It is minimally adequate but leaves real 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 50%: type and category are documented in the schema, while query and limit are not. The phrase 'by name, tagline, or maker' usefully expands what the required query matches, compensating partially for the bare schema, but limit is never explained in either place.

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?

Clear verb (search) plus resources (published products and agent skills) and the searchable fields (name, tagline, maker). It distinguishes itself from get_product and list_categories, though the title 'Search tools' is inconsistent with the product/skill domain.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as list_categories for browsing or get_product for a known item. The category param's schema text gestures at list_categories, but the description itself offers no routing 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 cover the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: a token is required, and the tool is a multi-step pipeline (read, draft, detect, file) rather than a single write. It also concretizes the idempotency hint by stating the duplicate case returns the existing listing.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the auth prerequisite and duplicate behavior. No padding or restatement of the title.

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 exists, and the description only partially compensates by describing the duplicate-case return; it doesn't say what a successful new submission returns (listing id, URL, review status). Given the annotations already cover safety and the parameters are fully documented, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 the schema already documents url, note, and maker fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and 'Requires a token' refers to auth rather than a declared input. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (submit a website/product), then details the internal pipeline: read site, draft listing, detect product vs agent skill, file for review. This scope statement distinguishes it from siblings like preview_product (which presumably stops at drafting) without needing to name 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the action endpoint and preview_product is the read-only alternative, but the description never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool. The duplicate-handling sentence is behavioral, not guidance. No explicit when/when-not.

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 mark the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it toggles state, which explains the alternating behavior, and explicitly requires a token (auth context). No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no redundant language; the action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is stated separately. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter toggle operation, the description plus schema are largely sufficient: purpose, target (slug), and auth requirement are all present. It stops short of describing the response or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple.

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 the only parameter (slug) with a clear description and example; the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('your upvote on a product'), which clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_product or submit_product. Even without opening the schema, an agent knows this tool mutates vote state rather than reading or listing.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that toggling is appropriate for both adding and removing an upvote, nor does it point to get_product or preview_product for read-only viewing. The token requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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