4bots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the link expires in 7 days, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., does creating a link trigger anything?), whether it's idempotent, or whether any permissions are needed. A 3 is appropriate given the lack of annotations and moderate behavioral context provided.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) states what the tool does, (2) provides when-not-to and alternative, (3) notes a key constraint (expiration). No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage guidance, and a key constraint (expiration). For a low-complexity tool, this is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns a link (implied by 'Create a browser link'), but that is reasonably inferred. A 4 reflects slight room for improvement in confirming output format.

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 add meaning beyond the schema. The description does not explicitly detail the parameters, but the context of creating a setup link for human selection implies what agent_email and human_email are. The description adds limited value for parameters, but the tool is simple enough that the schema parameter titles ('Agent Email', 'Human Email') combined with the description are largely sufficient. Given the low coverage, baseline is low, but the description's implied context earns a 4.

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 'Create' and the resource 'a browser link for your human to pick channels themselves'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'start_subscription' as an alternative for a different use case (fast start without human input). Purpose is specific and well-differentiated.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (when you want human input to pick channels) and when not to (for a fast start without human input, use start_subscription instead). This is exemplary usage guidance with an alternative named.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals return types (styled HTML and plain text), and a post-condition (check low_balance). It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, but given the simple read-like nature (getting content), this is sufficient for a score of 4.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and usage frequency. Every sentence provides actionable 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage frequency, output format (HTML and text), and a critical post-call action. It does not explain session_token or list possible error states, but given the low complexity, this is quite 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented session_token parameter. The description does not explicitly explain session_token, but since it's the sole required parameter and the tool is about fetching user-specific content, its purpose is reasonably inferred. The description adds value by explaining output format and balance check, earning a 4.

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 explicitly states it gets today's content for all subscribed channels, using a specific verb-resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it should be called once per day, whereas siblings like get_summary or list_channels likely serve different purposes.

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?

Clear usage guidance: 'Call this once per day.' It also provides actionable instructions on checking low_balance and directing the human to manage_url, making it explicit when and how to follow up.

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, the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Account status' hints at a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the response. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 very short, but it is a fragment (no verb) and not structured as a complete sentence. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and could be better organized with a front-loaded verb and structured list.

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?

The description only lists a few data items without explaining return format, interpretation, or the relationship between the session_token and the output. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'session_token' parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what the token is or how it relates to the account status data.

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 lists account status components (credits, channels, delivery counts, manage URL) but lacks a clear verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'. It implies the tool provides account status information, but the purpose is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_summary' or 'get_template'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use, leaving the agent without decision support.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It indicates this is a read operation aggregating three types of content, which is transparent for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or that no parameters are needed.

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 that uses exactly 8 words to convey the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information is present, and it is front-loaded with the key benefit.

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 tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval operation. It explains what data is returned. Minor gap: it does not confirm the return format or that no parameters are needed.

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 input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already fully captures the fact that no parameters are required. The description adds value by clarifying what data is returned (content catalog, privacy policy, pricing), which goes beyond 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?

The description clearly states that a single call retrieves the content catalog, privacy policy, and pricing. The verb is implied (get/retrieve) and the resource is well-defined as multiple specific pieces of information.

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 when you need these three specific data items together, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_template' or 'get_bundle'. No exclusion criteria or alternatives 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, requires any authentication, or what happens with the channels parameter (e.g., if it filters templates). The description lacks important behavioral 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?

The description is brief and front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured but is not verbose.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, error conditions, or how the channels parameter affects output.

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 clarify the parameters. The description does not explain what the 'channels' parameter does or its acceptable values. There is no added 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 clearly states the tool returns a free HTML email template with a placeholder for the service, and tells how to use it with get_bundle. However, the purpose could be clearer by explicitly stating it retrievs a template for introducing a service.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool when you need an email template and pairs with get_bundle. It does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor provide 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It correctly identifies that this is a read-only listing (no destructive behavior implied), and it reveals that it returns both active and proposed channels. It does not discuss pagination or performance, but for a 0-parameter tool returning a fixed set, this suffices.

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, two-sentence paragraph with zero filler. Every word adds value: it specifies the count (10), content (descriptions, pricing), and extra feature (proposed channels). No verbosity.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple listing tool. It states what data is returned and that proposed channels are included. No mention of output format or sorting, but the tool's simplicity and 8 sibling tools keep the burden low.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description has no parameters to document. It nonetheless adds meaning by describing what the tool returns (names, descriptions, pricing, and proposed channels), which adds context beyond 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource ('list channels') and adds the unique scope: 'All 10 channels with descriptions and pricing' and 'Also shows proposed channels you can vote on.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vote' and 'start_subscription'.

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 browsing available channels and proposed channels, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_summary or get_template instead). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses key traits: activation is instant without browser or human action, returns a session_token, and includes 100 free tokens on signup. These behavioral details go beyond what the schema provides. The only missing information is potential cost implications after the free tokens, but the free token offering is clearly stated, making this mostly transparent.

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 extremely concise with six short lines of prose plus a parameter list. It front-loads the key behavioral claims ('Activate instantly. No browser, no human action needed.') and provides actionable instructions immediately. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. The parameter list is cleanly formatted with single-line explanations.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, what it returns, where to get pre-requisite data (list_channels), and what to do with the output. The only minor gap is lack of error handling or failure modes, but the tool appears simple and low-risk. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines all four parameters clearly: human_email, channels, agent_email, and source with an example for channels and default guidance for source. The descriptions add meaning beyond the schema's empty titles by providing context like 'Your agent's email address' and 'How you found us (e.g. 'mcpregistry')'. The only gap is that required status is implicit from the list, but the schema already marks required fields.

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 activates a subscription ('Activate instantly') and specifies the resource it operates on. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'Returns a session_token — store it for daily get_bundle calls', which differentiates it from get_bundle and list_channels. The verb 'start_subscription' combined with the description of instant activation provides a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool and what to do afterward: 'store it for daily get_bundle calls' tells the agent to use the session_token with get_bundle subsequently. It also informs the agent about available channels via 'Call list_channels for available slugs', directing to a sibling tool for prerequisites. This covers both when to use and what actions to take before and after.

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 must carry the full burden for behavioral traits. It clearly states that the tool is a preview (no mutation), requires no signup, and has an optional source parameter. It does not mention rate limits, data retention, or what 'today's content' includes exactly, but for a lightweight trial tool this is sufficient.

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 very concise, with clear front-loading of the core purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it does, the entry-point instruction, and parameter documentation. There is zero wasted text.

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 (0 required params, no output schema, simple return type), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage flow, and parameters. Minor gaps: does not specify what 'today's content' entails or how many channels are previewed (implied to be 3). Still, it is highly functional for an AI agent.

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. The description explains the 'source' parameter's semantics: it is optional and indicates how the user found the service. It provides examples like 'mcpregistry', 'relay', 'search'. This adds value beyond the schema's default and type fields.

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 purpose: preview today's content from 3 channels. It specifies that it requires no arguments and no signup, making the scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_subscription by setting a clear entry-point role.

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 to call this first to see what the human would receive, then if liked, call start_subscription. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-switch guidance, directly contrasting with a sibling tool. The 'no signup, no arguments required' further clarifies the minimal commitment needed.

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 must carry the full burden. It only states that votes determine build order, which implies a write operation, but gives no details about idempotency, authentication requirements (e.g., session_token role), or whether votes can be modified. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the main action and effect. Every sentence serves a purpose—action, consequence, and prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'session_token' parameter or what the return value might be. The lack of explanation for a required authentication parameter is a notable gap.

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. However, it does not mention the 'channel' or 'session_token' parameters explicitly. The agent must infer that 'channel' likely refers to the slug from list_channels, and 'session_token' is likely an authentication token, but no explanation is given. This provides almost no additional meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Vote for a proposed channel') and the effect ('Votes determine build order'). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_channels' by noting that list_channels is used to see proposed channel slugs, implying vote is the action to take on those slugs.

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 a prerequisite: 'Use list_channels to see proposed channel slugs,' which tells the agent that the channel slug must be obtained first. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, it gives clear context for appropriate usage.

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