DayPilot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: 'Builder covers a configurable subset; absent settings do not establish unsupported product features,' which prevents a false negative inference. Return format is covered by the output schema.

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 output is dense but front-loaded: the core purpose leads, then filter rules, then the validate_project tie-in, then the caveat. Almost every clause carries procedural meaning. It is slightly jargon-heavy and clause-packed, keeping it from a 5.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers filter combinations, the cross-tool catalogRevision usage, and a scope caveat, which is complete for a read-only enumeration tool with dependent-required constraints. It omits nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 enum/constraint descriptions are already rich, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational semantics beyond individual fields by explaining how filters chain (omit all for components, add component then edition then target) and restates the target-requires-edition dependency.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Discover Builder components, targets, settings, option IDs and defaults.' It grounds the purpose in project creation and mentions validate_project for the catalogRevision handoff. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling catalog/discovery tools, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Explicit invocation rules are given: 'Omit all filters for components; supply component for targets/settings; add edition and target for explicit option support. Target requires edition.' This tells the agent exactly which filter combinations to use, though it frames guidance around parameters rather than naming alternative sibling tools for discovery.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: examples and edition qualifications are preserved, results carry source/revision/content/continuation, and continuation requires resending the same revision. The one weakness is the instruction to 'pass nextOffset' while the schema exposes a parameter named 'offset', which risks a caller confusion.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with no filler; the capability statement and URL/scope constraint come first, followed by pagination mechanics and the version caveat. Density is high, but every sentence carries usable 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?

An output schema exists, so return-field explanations are not required, and the description covers the two things the schema cannot: canonical-URL scope and the revision-locked continuation protocol. The unresolved 'nextOffset'/'offset' naming and unstated behavior for non-canonical URLs keep it from a 5.

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%, so parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds coordination semantics (revision must match while advancing the offset), but it refers to 'nextOffset' rather than the actual 'offset' parameter, which is a small naming mismatch rather than added clarity.

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 (Read) and a precisely bounded resource: published DayPilot API/documentation/CODE articles or JavaScript demo Markdown at a canonical source URL. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search or resolve_package, which locate rather than retrieve full published content.

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?

Implies the trigger condition (canonical published URLs on the listed hosts) and supplies a scope caveat that functions as a when-not: 'References describe the current documentation, not every installed version,' steering agents away from using it for version-specific content. It never names an alternative tool (e.g., search or resolve_package) for cases that fall outside canonical docs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). The description adds value beyond them: it is a verification step, not a byte-producing download, it returns a receipt plus a canonical POST request, Pro editions embed an evaluation trial, and existing apps must not be overwritten. This is unusually rich, though it doesn't state whether the digest check is enforced server-side or how failures surface.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then the follow-up procedure. Every sentence carries information, though the middle workflow sentence packs several steps and is the least scannable part.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully characterizes them as a verified receipt plus POST request. Combined with the download/verify/extract instructions it covers the full lifecycle; the main remaining gap is the semantics of the non-digest input parameters.

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 only 14%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 7 required parameters, yet it only ties expectedProjectDigest to validate_project and refers vaguely to 'the same validated specification'. The meaning and allowed values of target, edition/trial behavior, component, settings, and catalogRevision are not clarified beyond the schema's own enums and patterns.

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 and resource ('Generate and verify a new Builder project ZIP') and immediately scopes the output ('not ZIP bytes or a saved file'), which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_project by requiring the 'same validated specification plus expectedProjectDigest'.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream workflow (download via the returned POST request, verify archive SHA-256, extract into a new directory, follow generated README/AGENTS, check install/build/runtime) and a hard exclusion ('Never overwrite an existing app'). It implies validate_project must precede it but never says so explicitly, so the sequencing 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: canonical defaults, validation of settings, deterministic SHA-256 output, and the key non-persistent guarantee that no theme is saved. Missing details like failure behavior on invalid overrides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then behavior, then usage. Slightly dense final clause about application guidance and typings, but every sentence carries distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return fields need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still supplies the non-persistence guarantee, validation and defaults context, and integration guidance, so nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so prefix format, revision source, component enum, and override types are all documented in the schema. The description references these parameters but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond them, so 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 (Render) and resource (complete CSS from a theme_manifest revision), plus the distinguishing scope ('without saving a theme'). An agent can tell this apart from theme_manifest and validate_project without opening a 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?

It ties itself to theme_manifest by requiring the revision it returns, and notes the output is not persisted. However it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over validate_project or generate_project, leaving the alternative selection implicit.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: Pro resolves to a trial, it preserves the app's existing edition/version, and it explicitly disclaims side effects (no install) and scoped non-goals (no historical compatibility checking).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is resolved, then return contents, then the preservation rule and exclusions. Every sentence adds a distinct fact; the only mild cost is length relative to the two simple enum inputs.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining behavioral context (trial nature of Pro, preservation rule, non-goals) that an agent needs to call and interpret this 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?

Both parameters are required and enums are documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries most of the load. The description reinforces edition semantics (preserve the edition already in use) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own enum descriptions.

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 (resolve) plus the exact resource (latest official DayPilot Lite or Pro release) and enumerates the supported frameworks. An agent immediately knows this maps a version/edition/framework request to a concrete release, distinct from siblings like fetch or generate_project.

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?

Gives clear operating context: preserve an existing app's installed version and licensed dependency unless an upgrade is requested, and the explicit negative "Does not install packages or verify historical compatibility." It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or exhaustively stating when-not to use it, but the boundary is well drawn.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: results are ranked, exact-match groups are separated, URLs are canonical, and search output alone is insufficient for implementation claims. That is genuine context beyond the annotations.

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, no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the fetch handoff. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it usefully sketches result shape (ranked sources, exact-match groups, canonical URLs) and the required follow-up with fetch. Nothing needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so query, limit and scope are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that query accepts either free-form tasks or exact identifiers, but that overlaps the query description and says nothing about limit defaults or the scope values.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Search official DayPilot documentation, API references, examples and release information.' It also enumerates the corpus, which lets an agent separate it from data-transform siblings like resolve_package or render_theme, and it names the fetch sibling as the follow-up step.

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?

It gives a clear use context (task descriptions or exact API identifiers) and explicitly routes the agent to fetch before 'making implementation claims', which is a real workflow constraint. It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice, but the sibling handoff is unusually concrete.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the call is a pure discovery step that yields a revision token which render_theme later requires, which tells the agent this is a prerequisite rather than an action.

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 short sentences with no filler; the discovery purpose is front-loaded and the downstream dependency (render_theme revision) follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no narrative, yet the description still flags the one output element an agent must act on (the revision). For a one-parameter read-only discovery tool, nothing material 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an explicit enum, so the schema already carries full semantics. The description only restates that the manifest is per-DayPilot-component, adding no format or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('supported theme settings, defaults and value domains for a DayPilot component'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It also names the sibling it feeds into (render_theme), distinguishing it from the other builder/theme tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Inspect the manifest before choosing overrides' gives a clear trigger condition, and the reference to render_theme clarifies the workflow ordering. It stops short of naming when not to use it or an alternative discovery path, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value on top by naming the return payload (effective settings, qualified release identity, warnings, projectDigest) and clarifying that nothing is installed, built or run. This is behavior beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and inputs, then the return contract, then the exclusions. Dense but every clause carries signal; slightly packed into few sentences with no wasted framing.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still flags the key outputs and the cross-tool handoff to generate_project. Combined with read-only annotations and documented params, an agent has what it needs to 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and already documents catalogRevision, target, projectName and the settings default behavior. The description restates the settings map and '{} uses defaults' rather than adding syntax or format detail, so it barely exceeds the schema baseline.

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 ('Preflight a new Builder project') plus the exact required inputs, and it distinguishes itself from generate_project by position in the workflow (projectDigest is 'for generate_project'). An agent can tell what it does 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?

States the scope boundary explicitly ('Validates generation only; does not install, build or run the application') and gives a when-not rule ('Preserve an existing application instead of regenerating it'). It stops short of an explicit 'call this before generate_project' directive, though the projectDigest reference implies the ordering.

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