PromptDNA

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a cost of 5 credits, which is useful but insufficient. No information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions is 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?

The description is only two sentences, but its brevity sacrifices critical information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and cost, but the second sentence is trivial. The conciseness does not earn its place because it omits essential usage details.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the workflow of assembling prompts from blocks, how parameters interact, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools like 'get_block' have simpler contexts, making this omission more severe.

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 explain any of the six parameters. Essential details about 'block_ids', 'variables', 'category_filter', and 'max_blocks' are entirely absent, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

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 the tool assembles a prompt from blocks for a task, and calls itself 'the primary tool,' which clearly distinguishes its main purpose from siblings like 'find_compatible_blocks' or 'get_block.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over others.

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 'find_compatible_blocks' or 'search_blocks.' The statement 'the primary tool' vaguely implies priority, but offers no explicit when/when-not 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?

The description discloses the credit cost and states the output type (requires/recommends/conflicts relationships). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, error conditions, required permissions, or response structure. It provides basic behavior beyond the input schema but not comprehensive transparency.

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 plus a cost note, very concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it may be too brief to include necessary details; there is no wasted wording, but structure is minimal.

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 output schema, the description should explain the output format of the relationships (e.g., list of block IDs). It also does not specify block_id format. With 0% parameter coverage and sibling tools, the description is incomplete for a new user to understand exactly what they get back.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter block_id, and the description only says 'Given a block' without clarifying the expected format (e.g., UUID, string). It adds no meaning beyond the schema title 'Block Id', failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 requires/recommends/conflicts relationships for a given block. It uses specific verbs ('return') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_block (which returns block details) and search_blocks (search).

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 mentions a credit cost (0.5 credits), which is a usage constraint, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_block or search_blocks. There is no guidance on when not to use it 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions cost (2 credits) but does not disclose permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on original block), or ownership requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action. Every word adds value, and no irrelevant details are included.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the effect of optional parameters, return value, or any prerequisite conditions (e.g., ownership of source block). A more comprehensive description is 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters individually. 'source_block_id' is implied, but 'name' and 'template_override' are left undefined, providing minimal value 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 action ('fork'), the resource ('existing block'), and the outcome ('new lineage you own'). It distinguishes from siblings like submit_block or get_block by specifying the fork operation and ownership transfer.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_block or compose_prompt. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions 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?

The description discloses the cost of 0.5 credits, which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and provides useful information, though it lacks details on rate limits or authorization.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details without unnecessary 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?

Despite no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the main functionality, filtering, and cost. It lacks details on response format or pagination, but for a simple listing tool it is largely 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that 'category' and 'block_id' are for filtering. However, it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter (e.g., pagination behavior), leaving a gap.

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 lists published benchmark test cases with filtering options and aggregate pass rates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_benchmark (creation) and get_block (specific block retrieval).

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 indicates use for listing benchmarks with filters, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude usage scenarios or mention alternatives, but the intended use is evident.

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 burden. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'fetch': it discloses the cost (0.5 credits) and rate limit (40 calls per rolling hour per account/IP). This helps the agent plan usage. However, it does not describe error behavior or response format.

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: two sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential cost and rate-limit info. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and rate limits. However, it omits any description of the return value (what fields the block object contains) and error cases. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a gap that could hinder agent understanding.

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 schema has 1 required parameter (block_id) with no description. The description merely says 'by id', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not explain the id format, constraints, or how to obtain it.

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 ('Fetch a specific block') and the resource ('by id'). It differentiates from sibling tools like search_blocks (which searches) and get_block_versions (which lists versions). The verb-resource combo is specific and 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 implies usage when you have a known block id, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use search_blocks if you don't have the id). No alternatives are mentioned. The context is clear but lacks 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?

The description mentions the credit cost (0.5 credits) but fails to disclose other important behaviors such as idempotency, error handling, or data scope. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is too sparse for the complexity of the tool; it sacrifices essential details for brevity.

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 annotations, output schema, and any parameter details, the description leaves major gaps. It does not specify what the return value looks like, how lineage_id is obtained, or common use cases.

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 single required parameter lineage_id has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain what it represents or how to find it. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 retrieves a changelog for a block's lineage, indicating it returns historical versions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_block (current version) and fork_block (create new version). However, the term 'lineage' is not fully explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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 get_block or find_compatible_blocks. The description only states what it does, not the context 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?

The description discloses the credit cost (0.5 credits), which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention read-only nature, potential side effects, or performance implications. Partial disclosure.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds cost information efficiently.

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 output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers basic functionality but omits details like return format, pagination (limit parameter), or valid filter values. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description explains that filtering by category and/or status is possible, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify valid values for 'category' or 'status', leaving ambiguity. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates.

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 ('List block bounties'), the resource, and filtering options. It distinguishes the tool from its siblings by being specific about what it lists.

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 'get_block' or 'get_trending'. Missing context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions cost (0.5 credits) but lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return format. Incomplete for a fetch 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?

Single sentence is concise but sacrifices informative detail. Could be slightly longer to include essential behavioral notes without being 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 1 param, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits critical context: what constitutes a 'curated collection', response structure, error handling, or pagination. Incomplete for an API tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. Description only implicitly indicates collection_id is an identifier but adds no explicit format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema field name.

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 'Fetch a curated collection of blocks', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_block (single block) and search_blocks (search).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While cost is mentioned, there is no context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool is 'Always free,' but fails to describe other important behaviors such as data freshness, idempotency, or whether it requires authentication.

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, no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks guidance on what the output looks like and when to use it, but it does convey the essential purpose. It is adequate but leaves gaps for more complex decision-making.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('your own' and 'still eligible for appeal'), which the empty schema does not convey.

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 ('List') and the specific resource ('your own credit penalties still eligible for appeal'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_appeal by focusing on listing appealable penalties.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Always free' hints at no cost but does not provide context for when to use it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use 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 convey behavioral traits. It adds a cost of 0.5 credits, a useful behavioral detail, but lacks information on return structure, sorting, pagination, or error handling. Compared to the absent annotations, the description provides minimal but non-contradictory 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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose then adding cost. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not specify result format (e.g., list of block IDs/objects), ordering (by usage or rating?), or pagination. The agent lacks enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior and 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 compensate. It explains 'domain' and 'category' as optional scoping, and implies 'limit' through 'top blocks', but does not define parameter formats, defaults, or constraints. This partial compensation is insufficient for full understanding.

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 'top blocks by usage/rating' with optional scoping by 'domain/category'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_block' (single block) and 'search_blocks' (text search).

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 usage when needing trending blocks, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., 'search_blocks' for text queries). No exclusions or context for sibling tools 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost, blockchain network, time limit, and clarifies the fee is not a wallet-ownership proof. This is comprehensive for a registration step.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Critical information is front-loaded: 'Step 1 of autonomous self-registration' followed by key constraints.

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 registration step with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, cost, next step, and time limit. It is fully adequate for agent 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 0%, but the single parameter wallet_address is implied by the context of registration and payment. The description could explicitly state it's the user's wallet address on Base, but the flow makes it understandable.

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 is Step 1 of autonomous self-registration, with a specific verb (register) and resource (agent). It distinguishes itself from the sibling verify_registration by explicitly calling it step 1 and mentioning 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?

Provides explicit guidance: no API key required, costs $0.01 USDC on Base (anti-spam fee), must sign the returned nonce and call verify_registration within 5 minutes. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool.

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 behavioral traits. It only states 'Always free', indicating no cost, but omits many important details: whether the report is anonymous, if it triggers automatic actions, what happens to reported blocks, error conditions, or if it can be undone. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 two short sentences. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices crucial information. For a 2-param tool, it could include more detail without becoming bloated. It is well-structured but underinformative.

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, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, expected input formats, or what happens after reporting. An agent would lack critical context to use the tool 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving parameters block_id and evidence undefined. The description fails to explain what 'evidence' constitutes (e.g., text screenshots, logs) or how to obtain a valid block_id. Since the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names, this scores very low.

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: reporting a suspected prompt-injection block. The verb 'report' and the specific resource 'prompt-injection block' provide clarity, though 'block' is not defined further. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_dmca_takedown or submit_appeal which cover different report types.

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 phrase 'Always free' suggests no cost, but does not explain context, prerequisites, or when not to use. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses free tier, pricing per call, and max results (50). However, it does not state that the tool is read-only or mention any authentication requirements, rate limits beyond the free tier, or side effects.

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 that front-loads the core purpose, followed by essential pricing and limit information. 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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits what the tool returns, how to use filters (domain/category), and whether results are paginated despite mentioning a max. A search tool needs more detail to be effectively invoked.

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 explain any of the four parameters (query, limit, domain, category). The parameter names are partially descriptive, but the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer 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 states 'Semantic/keyword search over blocks,' clearly indicating the action (search) and resource (blocks). It distinguishes from siblings like get_block and get_collection, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from find_compatible_blocks.

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 pricing and result limits, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_compatible_blocks or get_trending. No prerequisites or 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost and refund behavior but omits behaviors like what happens on rejection, approval criteria, or rate limits. Adds moderate value beyond 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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loads purpose. Could be slightly improved but is efficient.

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 output schema, no annotations, 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It lacks information on return values, field explanations, and success/failure indicators.

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 description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. It only hints at penalty selection via 'one of your own credit penalties'. No parameter meaning added.

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?

Description clearly states the tool appeals credit penalties, specifies it is for the user's own penalties, and uses a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_appealable_penalties and submit_block.

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?

Mentions a 10-credit bond cost and refund condition, providing some usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking appealability first) 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 discloses important behaviors: costs 2 credits from a specific bucket, always created pending requiring moderator approval. This goes beyond basic function. However, it does not mention side effects or rate limits.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: first defines the core action, second adds behavioral constraints. 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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description omits the return value (e.g., submission ID or status) and fails to explain the meaning of the 6 parameters, leaving significant gaps for an 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%, and the description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema field names and types.

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 submits a benchmark test case, with specific verb 'submit' and resource 'benchmark test case'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_block by specifying 'benchmark' and adds lifecycle context (pending, moderator approval).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: to submit a benchmark test case. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but it is sufficiently specific.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost (2 credits) and bucket priority, which is valuable. But it does not mention mutation side effects, permissions, error handling, or reversibility, leaving gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Efficiently conveys core purpose and cost detail.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Missing context on submission process, success/failure signals, and parameter guidance. Incomplete for agent to use effectively.

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?

Description adds no meaning beyond parameter titles. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., name, template, domain). Minimal value added.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Submit a new block' with the specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fork_block and get_block by mentioning submission and cost.

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?

Implied usage: use when you have a block to submit. Mentions cost and credit bucket, giving some context, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_benchmark or find_compatible_blocks.

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?

Only discloses that the tool is free, but lacks details on side effects, legal implications, prerequisites, or success/failure conditions. No annotations to compensate.

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 (two sentences) but not detailed enough to be effective. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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 complex legal tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully inadequate. It does not explain the process, expected outcome, or how to obtain necessary IDs.

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 adds no information about the 5 required parameters (e.g., what 'counter_argument' or 'consent_to_jurisdiction' entail). The agent must infer all meaning from names alone.

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 ('File a counter-notice') and the resource ('against a DMCA takedown'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'submit_dmca_takedown' which handles the initial takedown.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when receiving a DMCA takedown vs. filing one). The mention of 'always free' is not usage guidance.

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

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

Description mentions it's free and requires no account, but fails to disclose legal consequences, destructive nature (content removal), required declarations, or authentication needs. Without annotations, the agent lacks crucial 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 concise (2 sentences) but under-specified. Key information is missing, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 complexity (legal action, 8 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, process details, and important warnings about legal implications.

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 adds no parameter information. For an 8-parameter tool, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving parameter semantics entirely to 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 action ('File a DMCA takedown notice') and the specific resource (takedown notice). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'submit_dmca_counter_notice' which handles the opposite 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The sibling 'submit_dmca_counter_notice' is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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 only mentions 'Always free', indicating no monetary cost, but fails to disclose other behaviors like anonymity, reversibility, or idempotency.

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?

Ultra-concise at two sentences, front-loads the verb and resource. However, could expand slightly without losing 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot infer correct invocation without more details.

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%. Description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., what 'clarity' means, scale for sub-ratings, or format for 'comment').

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Rate'), resource ('a block'), and scale ('1-5'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_block' or 'submit_benchmark'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_benchmark' or 'submit_appeal'. The phrase 'Always free' hints at cost but not usage context.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it issues an API key, requires an ECDSA signature over a nonce, and is always free. This is transparent about the action and outcome.

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 concise sentences. First sentence sets context and constraint. Second explains action and result. 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?

Completeness is high given it's a step in a process. Mentions the output (API key). Could optionally detail error scenarios, but it's 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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains that signature proves control of wallet used in register_agent, adding context beyond parameter names. Both parameters are covered.

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?

Description explicitly states it is step 2 of autonomous self-registration, proving wallet control via ECDSA signature and issuing an API key. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_agent (step 1) and others.

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 'no API key required' and 'Always free', providing clear context. Implicitly it is used after register_agent, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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