explain_ratingReturn rating dimensions, explanations, penalties, and boosts for one tool_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_id | Yes | Stable Agent Radar tool identifier, usually obtained from search_tools results. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, error handling, or data freshness. It merely restates the purpose.
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 with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 tool (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers the return content (dimensions, explanations, penalties, boosts). It is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it, though it could mention what happens if tool_id is invalid.
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?
With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the description adds value by specifying the origin of tool_id ('usually obtained from search_tools results'), which aids agent understanding. Baseline 3 is exceeded.
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 specific resource: 'rating dimensions, explanations, penalties, and boosts for one tool_id.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tool_card (which likely returns a tool card) and search_tools (which searches for 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage when needing rating details for a single tool, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: explain_rating for detailed rating breakdown, get_tool_card for full card retrieval, recommend_tools for task-based suggestions, and search_tools for querying the database. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (explain_rating, get_tool_card, recommend_tools, search_tools) using snake_case, making the set predictable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to cover core operations (search, retrieve details, explain ratings, recommend) without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers the primary needs of a tool registry: searching, retrieving individual cards, explaining ratings, and getting recommendations. There are no obvious gaps given the stated purpose.