Taren Raider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and the default result count, and 'List' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about ordering guarantees, rate limits, or behavior when no videos exist.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence largely duplicates the schema's limit documentation, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it explains the optional limit. For a one-parameter read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient, missing only edge-case behavior.

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% and the single parameter's bounds and default are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the same 1-20 range and default of 5 without adding any new semantics, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('List') and resource ('most recent Taren Raider videos') and even enumerates the returned fields (title, publish date, watch URL). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_live_status and get_schedule, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

'Use this when asked about recent content, VODs, or what to watch' gives a clear triggering context an agent can match against user intent. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states that game, title, viewer count, and start time are returned, and 'when live' signals those fields are conditional on live state. It doesn't cover offline/error behavior, but for a zero-param read tool this is solid context.

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, return contents front-loaded before the usage clause, no redundant restatement of the name or title. Every phrase 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 no-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the purpose, the trigger condition, and the shape of the returned data, which is everything an agent needs to select and call it 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level ambiguity exists for an agent to resolve.

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 ('Report') and resource ('whether Taren Raider is live on Twitch right now') with the exact fields returned enumerated. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_schedule (upcoming) and get_latest_vods (past).

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?

'Use this for any question about whether the stream is currently live' gives an explicit trigger condition. It does not name the sibling to use instead for schedule/VOD questions, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative routing.

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 and does disclose the return content (per-day game, next-stream instant) and that timezone rendering applies to every time. It does not state whether the schedule is static or refreshed, nor any auth/rate-limit behavior, which is a modest gap for an unannotated read tool.

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, zero filler: purpose/payload first, then the answering use case, then the optional parameter's effect. Front-loaded and tight.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by explaining what is returned and how the single optional parameter changes the output. Minor omissions remain, notably the default timezone when omitted and any freshness guarantees.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the effect of the timezone value: it renders 'every time in the caller's zone.' It still doesn't say what happens when the parameter is omitted, leaving the default behavior unstated.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('weekly Taren Raider stream plan') and enumerates the payload: each day's game plus the exact ISO-8601 instant of the next stream. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_latest_vods, get_live_status, and get_site_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?

Explicitly states the use case: 'Use this to answer when Taren streams next or what is planned for a given day.' That gives clear context, but it never names the alternative for adjacent questions (e.g., get_live_status for a current-stream check), so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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 provided, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it handles it well for a zero-argument, read-only info tool: it states the response is a 'factual profile' and enumerates the fields returned, making clear this is a passive lookup with no mutation. It does not mention caching or freshness, which is the only real gap.

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 with zero filler. The returned content is front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage trigger follows immediately, which is the right order for an agent scanning for fit.

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, but the description compensates by enumerating the fields the profile contains (platforms, handles, Discord invite, email, website). For a simple zero-parameter, no-annotation lookup, nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 ('Return') and resource ('factual profile of Taren Raider') and enumerates the exact contents: channel description, platforms/handles, Discord invite, contact email, and canonical website. This content set is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (VODs, live status, schedule, merch), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions: identity questions and 'where can I find' questions about the streamer. It gives clear context for when to call it, though it does not contrast against the sibling tools by name (they are distinct enough that this is a minor 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (matches with lowest price and buy link), implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, empty-result behavior, authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the return payload stated up front. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the first (shirts/stickers are examples of product names) but does earn its place by enumerating merchandise categories.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the domain, the search semantics, and the return contents, which covers what an agent needs. It could add a note on result count or no-match behavior to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description restates the search-by-product-name semantics without adding format, matching, or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Search), the resource (official Taren Raider merch store), the search key (product name), and what is returned (matching products with lowest price and buy link). The sibling tools (vods, live status, schedule, site info) are in entirely different domains, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

"Use this for any question about available shirts, stickers, or other merchandise" gives clear positive usage context and implicitly bounds the tool away from the non-merch siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion rule, but the sibling set makes routing unambiguous.

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