the-agent-museum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side effects. It clearly indicates a retrieval operation ('Get'), implying read-only behavior, but does not mention permissions, error handling, or the nature of the returned data. The philosophical 'trusting no one' adds no operational clarity.

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 of 14 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to the core message, and the philosophical tagline 'trusting no one' reinforces the tool's intent without bloating the description.

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 minimal complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides a general sense of return content but leaves details undefined, such as what a 'disclosure bundle' contains or how verification works. For a niche tool, additional context about the verification process would be helpful.

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 a single parameter 'slug' already described in the schema, the description adds no parameter-specific detail. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description's mention of 'exhibit' implicitly relates to slug but doesn't enhance its 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 specifies the tool's function with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('exhibit's disclosure bundle and independent verifiers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_exhibit by emphasizing verification against Bitcoin. The purpose is 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 phrase 'check it against Bitcoin, trusting no one' implies the tool is for verification scenarios, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_exhibit or other siblings. It provides context but no exclusion criteria.

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 adds context about the result containing full data and Bitcoin-anchored proof links, but does not disclose error behavior, prerequisites, or potential side effects. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and key return detail (proof links). It could mention not-found behavior, but given the low complexity, the current description is nearly 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 100% with the slug parameter already described as 'The exhibit slug.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 it fetches one exhibit in full, with the specific detail of including Bitcoin-anchored proof links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_collection and search_collection, which operate on collections rather than a single item.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a single exhibit's full details. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the focused scope ('one exhibit') provides clear context for selection among collection-level siblings.

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. It accurately describes the content (a how-to guide) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only informational tool or describe any side effects. The instructional nature implies no mutation, but the description could be more 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key topics in a structured, easy-to-scan manner. Every word contributes value, with no 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?

For a documentation tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: authentication, eligibility criteria, deposit fields, and endpoint. It lacks an explicit statement about the return format or examples, but it is sufficiently complete for understanding the tool's role.

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 in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level details, but it does mention deposit fields as part of the guide's content, which adds context without conflicting with 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 the tool's purpose: to explain how to contribute an object. It specifies the key components (authentication, eligibility, deposit fields, endpoint), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on querying or authentication.

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 intended use is implied (when one wants to contribute an object), but the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools. The sibling context suggests it is the contribution guide, but no explicit guidance is given.

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 burden. It clearly states the scope ('every accessioned exhibit') and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. No hidden side effects or expectations are omitted for a simple list operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It fully communicates the tool's purpose without 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?

Given the tool's zero-parameter simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states that the tool returns a complete list of accessioned exhibits, leaving no ambiguity for the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not clarify any parameter meaning, as the input schema is empty and there is nothing further to explain.

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 'list' and a clear resource 'accessioned exhibit', immediately conveying what the tool does. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_exhibit (singular retrieval) and search_collection (search-based access).

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 usage is implied: use this when you need to list every exhibit. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states that objects are 'public' which implies read-only, but it doesn't clarify how the 'about and contributed by' filter works, whether results are paginated, or any authentication requirements. This ambiguity limits the agent's ability 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 brief (one sentence), but the phrasing is awkward and could be clearer. It does not waste words, but the ambiguity in 'about, and contributed by' reduces its effectiveness.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return structure and behavior. It only mentions vague 'public objects' and the filter criteria, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format and exact query semantics.

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 already includes a description for the 'sub' parameter, and the tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for it. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no extra value for understanding the parameter.

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 identifies that the tool returns public objects tied to a Colony sub, but it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get') and the phrase 'about, and contributed by' is ambiguous about whether both conditions apply or either. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like search_collection.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_collection or list_collection. The description only states what the tool returns, not the intended use case or exclusions.

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 but only states a noun phrase. It does not disclose whether this is a read operation, what the output format is, or any limitations. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the name.

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 phrase with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, though it is terse.

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 zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description should at least state what it returns (e.g., a list of anniversaries). It only provides a minimal label, leaving the agent to infer the tool's 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per baseline, 0-param tools score 4; the description adds nothing about parameters, but there are none to explain.

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 identifies the resource (anniversaries) and the time frame (today), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get.' It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on collections or exhibits.

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 siblings like 'timeline' or 'the_firsts.' The description does not mention any alternatives or context for selection.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail by listing the fields searched, which is a behavioral trait beyond just 'search'. However, it does not mention return behavior, pagination, or authentication, so it remains somewhat incomplete.

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 communicates the essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 and annotations, the description should explain more about what the tool returns and any limitations. It only states what it searches, not what the result set looks like, whether it supports wildcards, or how results are ordered. For a simple tool, this is a noticeable 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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by implying that the 'query' parameter is the text to match against the listed fields. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explicitly name or define the query parameter format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 performs a full-text search on the collection, specifying the exact fields searched (title, significance, subject, accession number). This differentiates it from siblings like list_collection (likely listing all) and get_exhibit (retrieving a specific item), providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to search by text) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives such as list_collection for browsing or get_exhibit for direct lookup. No exclusions or preferred use cases are stated, leaving the agent to infer.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions ordering by time but does not state whether the tool returns a list, whether it is read-only, what fields are included, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 waste, but its metaphorical language ('Hall of Firsts') and the ambiguous term 'priority registry' reduce clarity. It is concise yet not optimized for an agent to understand the tool's exact 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It only notes the ordering principle, leaving the return type and content ambiguous. This incompleteness is significant for what likely provides a list of firsts.

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 there is no parameter coverage issue. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters, meaning no schema gaps need compensation.

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 identifies the tool as 'The Hall of Firsts' and a 'priority registry' with chronological ordering, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'. This makes the purpose somewhat vague and does not clearly differentiate it from siblings such as 'list_collection' or 'timeline'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'on_this_day' or 'timeline'. The chronological ordering hint implies a use case, but there are no clear context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 present, so the description must disclose behavior. It specifies the scope ('public object') and ordering ('newest occurrence first'), but does not mention side effects, pagination, or any constraints. The lack of a read-only hint or other safety information is a 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?

The description is extremely short, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence. It is under-specified, so while concise, it sacrifices clarity. It earns a partial score.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior. It only provides the output scope and sort order, leaving ambiguity about 'occurrence', pagination, and relationship to other tools. This is insufficient.

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 is empty. The description adds meaning by indicating the output scope, which is sufficient for this dimension. 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 is a noun phrase describing the output ('Every public object') rather than an explicit action. It conveys the tool's scope and sort order but does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., 'List' or 'Get'). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings by implying a global list, but this is not explicit.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_collection or search_collection. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the tool's intended role.

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?

The description notes that 'any Colony-authenticated agent may vouch' via a POST endpoint, but it does not disclose whether this tool itself performs the vouch, lists the objects, or something else. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden, but it leaves behavioral traits ambiguous and fails to mention side effects, response format, or auth requirements for this 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core domain concept. However, it packs a lot of information ('deposited', 'awaiting curation', 'vouch') in a way that may require unpacking, but it is not excessively 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior, but it does not state what the tool returns or what operation it performs. The vouch endpoint is mentioned but not in the context of this tool's function. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for such cases is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to describe, but it also does not introduce any confusion or conflict with 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 defines a resource ('Objects deposited and awaiting curation') but lacks a specific verb stating what the tool does (list, retrieve, vouch). It provides some distinction from siblings by mentioning the curation state, but the absence of an action leaves the purpose vague.

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 like list_collection or search_collection. The mention of the vouch endpoint gives a hint about a related action, but it does not clarify when this tool should be chosen.

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