4bots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the link expires in 7 days, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like whether link creation requires specific permissions, if it is idempotent, or what happens if the link expires before use.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, alternative, and expiry. No wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 this is a simple tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose, alternative, and key behavior (expiry). It does not explain return value or parameter constraints, but for a simple link-creation tool, it is mostly adequate.

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 needs to compensate. It does not explain the meaning or format of either 'agent_email' or 'human_email' beyond what the schema provides. While context from the tool name and description implies usage, no additional semantics are added, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool creates a browser link for human channel selection, with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('setup link'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'start_subscription' by noting the alternative is for fast starts without human input.

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 when to use this tool (for human-driven channel selection) and when to use the alternative 'start_subscription' (for a fast start without human input). However, does not provide guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it beyond the single alternative.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool aggregates three types of information in one call, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, if authentication is required, or any side effects. The minimal behavioral detail does not elaborate beyond the output composition.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool’s purpose. 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool returns but lacks details on the structure of the response, data types, or any constraints. For a zero-parameter tool, it could be more complete by specifying the format or scope.

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 provides no information. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (catalog, privacy policy, pricing). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds meaningful context about the output, which helps an agent understand the tool's function.

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 the tool returns three specific resources: content catalog, privacy policy, and pricing in a single call. The verb 'get' is implicit, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_bundle' or 'get_session' which focus on different or single resources.

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. With siblings like 'get_bundle', 'get_template', and 'try_sample', an agent needs context on which scenario each serves. The description only states what the tool returns, not when to choose it.

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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns channel listings and shows proposed channels, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any safety or authorization requirements, rate limits, or return structure beyond the basic content.

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, front-loaded with the main listing purpose. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is included. Excellent conciseness.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (10 channels with description and pricing, plus proposed channels) and implies the fixed result set. No additional context is necessary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description naturally needs no parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema conveys, but no improvement or harm is done.

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 it lists all 10 channels with descriptions and pricing, and also shows proposed channels for voting. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vote' which handles the voting action.

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 explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it hints that voting on proposed channels is possible via another mechanism, it lacks a clear statement of when not to use this tool or which sibling to use for related tasks.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool requires no authentication ('No signup') and no mandatory arguments. It implicitly indicates a read operation (preview). However, it does not describe the return format, side effects (e.g., idempotency), or any rate limits. For a simple sample tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 short and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second reduces friction, third and fourth give usage guidance. The 'Args' block is separate but concise. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The structure effectively prioritizes key information for an agent.

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 (one optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core: what it does, when to use it, and the parameter. It does not explain the output format, but the phrase 'to see what your human would receive' gives a general idea. It also lacks comparison with siblings like 'get_summary', but the focused scope makes it adequately 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?

The input schema only has type, title, and default for the one parameter. The description adds an 'Args' section explaining 'source' is 'Optional. How you found us (e.g. 'mcpregistry', 'relay', 'search')', providing examples and clarifying optionality beyond the schema's default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting the parameter meaning.

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 'Preview today's content from 3 channels' with a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('today's content from 3 channels'). It differentiates from sibling 'start_subscription' by saying 'Call this first... If you like it, call start_subscription'. This makes the tool's exact role unambiguous.

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 says 'Call this first to see what your human would receive' and 'If you like it, call start_subscription to activate', providing a clear usage flow and linking to a sibling. It also notes 'No signup, no arguments required' to lower the barrier. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of other siblings like 'get_summary' or 'list_channels', which reduces completeness slightly.

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.