PromptDNA

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions a credit cost (5 credits) but fails to disclose any other behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or authorization needs.

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 (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place by stating the core action and cost, but could be better organized with additional 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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'blocks' are, how the prompt is assembled, or what the result looks like, leaving major gaps.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (e.g., domain, block_ids, variables), leaving the agent with no semantic aid beyond parameter names.

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 ('Assemble a prompt from blocks') and identifies it as 'the primary tool', giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'find_compatible_blocks' or '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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'the primary tool' is vague and does not offer explicit selection 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost and that it returns relationships, but does not cover authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what if block not found), or whether the operation is read-only. The transparency is minimal.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and mentions cost succinctly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the return data looks like (e.g., list of block IDs, relationship objects). It does not, leaving the agent without information about output structure or pagination. This is insufficient for full context.

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 only one parameter (block_id) with no description. The description says 'Given a block' but does not clarify what block_id represents (e.g., how to obtain it, format). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema itself.

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: 'return its requires/recommends/conflicts relationships' for a given block. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_block and search_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 mentions a cost ('Costs 0.5 credits'), which is a usage condition, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of relationships implies a specific use case, but no exclusions are stated.

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. It only discloses the cost and ownership transfer, but lacks information on side effects (e.g., impact on original block), permissions, reversibility, or idempotency. This is minimal 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse given the lack of additional context, but it achieves high efficiency for the purpose it serves.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, failure behavior, or optional parameter usage, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 adds no information about the three parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are missing. The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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'), making its purpose specific. The cost mention adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_block or submit_block, though 'fork' is a distinct operation.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The cost might imply a usage constraint, but it is not actionable guidance about scenarios or decision-making.

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?

Discloses the cost (0.5 credits), which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description should cover auth requirements, side effects, and data freshness. It does not mention that it is a read-only operation or any other behavioral details beyond cost.

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 followed by a cost note. No redundant words, front-loaded with the main action, and very concise.

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

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

Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality and filtering options. However, it lacks details on return structure, pagination, or required authentication, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 mentions filtering by category and block_id, adding meaning to two of three parameters. It does not describe the 'limit' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but misses one 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 clearly states the tool lists published benchmark test cases with filtering and aggregate pass rates. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling 'submit_benchmark' (write vs read), but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'get_trending'.

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, no exclusions, and no context on prerequisites or typical use cases. The cost hint is useful but does not address usage context against 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?

Discloses credit cost (0.5 credits) and rate limit (40/account/hour), which are important behavioral traits not covered elsewhere, given no 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, front-loaded with purpose, then cost and rate limit. 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?

Adequately covers essential behavior for a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema. Could benefit from defining what a 'block' is.

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?

Does not explain the block_id parameter beyond its name and type. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no format, validation, or context.

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?

Clearly states it fetches a specific block by ID. Differentiates from sibling tools like search_blocks and find_compatible_blocks by emphasizing specificity.

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 usage when you have a block ID, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools.

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 a 0.5 credit cost, which is useful, but omits behavioral details: whether it is read-only, what the changelog contains (e.g., timestamps, authors), or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond cost.

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 with no extra fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and cost. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description should explain the return structure (e.g., list of version objects with fields). It only provides a vague 'changelog' and cost, leaving the agent without understanding of the response format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'lineage_id' has 0% schema description coverage and the tool description does not explain its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The term 'lineage' is used but not linked explicitly to 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 'Changelog for a block's lineage' identifies the resource and action (changelog implies listing versions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_block' which retrieves current block data, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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. Siblings include 'get_block' and 'fork_block', but description does not clarify when version history is needed vs other operations. The cost hint is noted but not contextualized.

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, so description carries full burden. It reveals a cost of 0.5 credits and default filtering, but lacks other behavioral details like pagination or ordering.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, filters, default, and cost 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?

Covers purpose, filters, default, and cost. Lacks explanation of return format or pagination for the limit parameter, but adequate for a simple list 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description should detail parameters. It mentions filters by category and status but gives no value hints or usage examples beyond defaults.

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?

Clearly states it lists block bounties with filtering and default status. Distinguishes from sibling tools as no other deals with bounties.

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

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

Explicitly describes when to use: to list bounties with optional filters. Default status 'open' is mentioned, and cost is noted. No exclusions needed due to unique 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a cost of 0.5 credits, but does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor any prerequisites or limitations.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the action and adding the cost detail efficiently. No superfluous text.

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

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

Given no output schema and high schema coverage gap, the description is insufficient. It omits what a 'collection' contains, response format, and any constraints on the parameter.

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 meaning to the 'collection_id' parameter beyond its name. The agent has no information on valid values or format.

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 'Fetch' and resource 'curated collection of blocks', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_block' which fetches a single block. The purpose is clear.

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 over alternatives like 'get_trending' or 'get_block'. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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. It adds 'Always free' which hints at no cost, but does not disclose other behaviors like read-only nature, rate limits, or caching. Adequate but not rich.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. The additional 'Always free' is minor but not wasteful. Front-loaded and 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?

For a simple, parameterless list tool, the description covers the core purpose and a behavioral trait (free). Without an output schema, a hint about the response format would be helpful, but it is marginally 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?

There are no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('your own credit penalties'), and the scope ('still eligible for appeal'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'submit_appeal' by focusing on listing rather than submitting.

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 for viewing appealable penalties but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. However, given the self-explanatory name and zero parameters, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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?

Discloses cost (0.5 credits) which is useful, but no annotations exist. Lacks info on read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Heavily relies on the agent's implicit assumptions.

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 front-load the purpose. No redundancy, but slightly terse given the lack of other documentation.

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?

Lacks output format, sorting direction, time window for trending, pagination details, and parameter constraints. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only relates 'domain' and 'category' to scoping, but does not explain limit (default 10) or provide format examples. Minimal value added beyond parameter names.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves top blocks sorted by usage/rating, and supports optional scoping by domain and category. Distinct from search_blocks or get_block, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 vs alternatives like search_blocks or get_block. Does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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?

Discloses cost ($0.01 USDC), purpose (anti-spam fee, not wallet proof), return value (nonce), and time constraint (5 minutes). Missing details on failure modes or expiration handling, but covers key behaviors beyond basic 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key context, no fluff. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying purpose, cost, flow, and constraint.

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 simple tool (1 param, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, cost, return, time limit, next step. Complete for its complexity.

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 provides no description for wallet_address (0% coverage). Description does not add meaning beyond the name, leaving the agent to infer it is the caller's address. With low schema coverage, description should compensate but does not.

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?

Clearly states it's 'Step 1 of autonomous self-registration' with specific verb 'register', resource 'agent', and details like no API key required, cost, and return nonce. Distinguishes from its sibling verify_registration.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use (step 1 of registration) and when not (no API key required), and directs to next step (sign and call verify_registration within 5 minutes). Provides clear context and alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Report', which implies a write action but does not describe side effects, outcomes, or any safety considerations.

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 at two sentences. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical information; nonetheless, for its length it is efficiently 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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks instructions on how to provide valid evidence or what happens after reporting, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('block_id' or 'evidence'). It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's 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 explicitly states the verb 'Report' and the resource 'suspected prompt-injection block', clearly defining the tool's purpose. It is unique among siblings, which include various other actions but no other reporting tool for injection attempts.

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 includes 'Always free', implying no cost to use, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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. It discloses pricing and a max result limit, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, or any authentication requirements, leaving behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys key information (search type, pricing, limit) without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the concept of 'blocks', parameter semantics, or return format. Crucial details for an AI agent to use the tool correctly are 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 0%, so parameters like query, limit, domain, category are not explained in the schema or description. The description only adds the search type and result cap, not parameter meaning. This is insufficient for effective use.

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 performs 'Semantic/keyword search over blocks', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_compatible_blocks or get_block, though the term 'search' implies a distinct purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pricing and result limits but lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use, or how it compares to other search or retrieval tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: a 10-credit bond is required and refunded if approved. This adds valuable context beyond a simple 'appeal.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient, though it could benefit from more structure, such as listing parameter guidance.

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 and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to construct the appeal, what constitutes a valid explanation, or what the response will contain. There is a related sibling tool ('get_my_appealable_penalties') that could be referenced but isn't.

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 7 parameters (5 required) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter, such as 'explanation_what' or 'penalty_ledger_entry_id,' leaving the agent without guidance on filling them correctly.

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 ('Appeal'), the object ('your own credit penalties'), and includes specific cost and refund conditions. It differentiates from siblings like 'submit_dmca_counter_notice' by focusing on credit 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?

The description provides clear context for use (appealing one's own credit penalties) and mentions cost conditions. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_my_appealable_penalties' 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by noting the 2-credit cost, the submission-only bucket, and the pending status with moderator approval. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the submission lifecycle.

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 efficient sentences without any fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical constraints. Every word earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, return value information, and any guidance on how to construct the submission. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 its 6 parameters, and the tool description does not explain any parameter beyond their names. The agent must guess the meaning of fields like 'scenario_input' and 'judging_criteria' from context, which is insufficient.

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 'Submit a new benchmark test case', specifying the verb 'submit' and the resource 'benchmark test case'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_block and submit_appeal, which handle different entities.

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 relevant usage context: it mentions the credit cost and the pending approval requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give 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 carries full burden. It reveals the cost side effect but does not explain validation, success/failure behavior, authentication requirements, or return format. Only partial 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, efficient sentence. It conveys the core action and cost without any fluff, earning its place.

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

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

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to form a valid block, what each parameter does, or what the tool returns. Critical gaps remain.

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 adds no explanation for any of the 10 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to elaborate on required fields like 'name', 'template', 'domain', 'category', making parameter meaning unclear.

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 'Submit a new block' clearly states the verb (submit) and the resource (a new block). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'submit_benchmark' or 'submit_rating' which submit different entities.

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 the cost of 2 credits and the credit bucket source, giving some context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only adds 'Always free,' which is a cost note but omits details like whether the action is reversible, what happens after submission, or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, but it is too minimal given the tool's complexity. It is concise but not adequately informative.

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 5 required parameters undocumented, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It only covers basic purpose.

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 5 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter (e.g., block_id, complaint_id, counter_argument, consent_to_jurisdiction, signature), leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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: 'File a counter-notice against a DMCA takedown.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_dmca_takedown (initial notice) and submit_appeal (generic appeals).

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

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

The description implies the tool is used after receiving a DMCA takedown to file a counter-notice, but it offers no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The phrase 'Always free' is a minor usage note but insufficient.

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 adds 'Always free, no account required,' which discloses cost and authentication requirements. However, it omits side effects, legal implications, or what happens after submission.

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 brief sentences, front-loaded with purpose. However, the conciseness sacrifices necessary detail for a legal tool.

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 legal nature, 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a DMCA takedown is, parameter meanings, or expected results.

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%. The description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, including the required boolean declarations (good_faith_declaration, accuracy_declaration) and what they mean.

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 files a DMCA takedown notice, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'submit_dmca_counter_notice' which is the opposing 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 versus siblings (e.g., submit_dmca_counter_notice). No prerequisites or context provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Always free' hints at no cost but does not disclose if the rating is public, persistent, or modifies the block. No side effects or required permissions are mentioned.

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?

Very short, two sentences, no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Could be expanded without becoming overly long.

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 7 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot infer how to populate parameters like 'clarity' or 'comment', or what the tool returns. Many sibling tools exist, but no distinguishing context is given.

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 only mentions rating 1-5, which loosely maps to the required 'overall' parameter, but completely ignores six other parameters (clarity, accuracy, comment, etc.). No parameter meaning is added beyond the schema field names.

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?

Clearly states 'Rate a block 1-5' indicating verb (rate) and resource (block). 'Always free' adds a minor behavioral note. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like submit_block or find_compatible_blocks, but the action is distinct enough.

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 or when to avoid it. No alternatives mentioned. The description is purely declarative without context for decision-making.

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, description discloses that the tool is free, requires no prior API key, and issues an API key upon successful signature verification. It does not mention error handling, idempotency, or rate limits, but basic behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with critical context (step 2, no API key). It is concise, though slightly more structured formatting could improve readability.

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 verification step with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose and high-level behavior. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but overall it is 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%, but description only mentions wallet_address and signature in passing ('ECDSA signature over its nonce'). It lacks details on format, length, or generation method, which is insufficient for proper parameter usage.

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 it is step 2 of autonomous self-registration, proves wallet control via ECDSA signature, and issues an API key. It distinguishes from sibling register_agent by specifying it is the subsequent 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?

Description indicates it is step 2, implying use after register_agent, and notes no API key required. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving room for improvement.

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