executable-science

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read and that the resource is public, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the identifier is not found, whether the response includes only metadata or the full resource, or any access restrictions beyond 'public'.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it includes the key extra detail (rights and provenance) without waste. 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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating what the response contains (e.g., metadata fields, rights statement, provenance) and error behavior for unknown IDs. The sibling list suggests search_resources handles discovery, but the description doesn't explicitly connect them.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds that the resource is 'catalogued' and 'public' and that rights/provenance are included, but it doesn't add format or syntax details for resource_id beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one catalogued public resource by its identifier'), and mentions it includes rights and provenance. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_resources beyond the 'by its identifier' phrasing.

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 this is for fetching a single known resource by ID, while search_resources is presumably for discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_resources or other siblings, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that templates are frozen, that the return includes the full content, and that the revision digest pins the exact revision an attempt was prepared against. It does not cover errors, authorization, or rate limits, but for a read operation the disclosed semantics are substantive.

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 zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the most relevant behavioral nuance, the revision pinning, without waste.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, enumerates the return contents, and explains the revision semantics an agent would need to select appropriate templates. Nothing essential is missing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents task_id as 'Task template identifier'. The description adds context about what a task template is and why the revision digest matters, but it does not add parameter-level format or usage details 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 uses a specific verb (Read) and resource (one frozen task template) and then enumerates exactly what is returned: question, inputs, assumptions, comparison basis, limitations, and revision digest. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_task_templates (plural listing) and get_resource (generic resource).

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 makes clear this is the tool for reading one full task template, especially when revision-pinned details are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single-template-versus-list contrast with list_task_templates gives adequate contextual 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the items are 'bounded' and 'frozen' and that each carries a 'revision digest and its own stated limitations,' which gives useful behavioral context about the nature of the data. However, it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List the bounded, frozen questions'), followed by a brief note on what each item carries. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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

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

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (a list of templates) and what each item includes (revision digest, limitations). It could mention whether the list is paginated or ordered, but for a simple list operation this is a minor gap.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds context about what the returned items contain (revision digest, limitations), which is helpful.

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 'bounded, frozen questions this platform publishes for attempt,' which is a specific verb (list) and resource (task templates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task_template (which retrieves a single template) and search_resources (which searches resources). The phrase 'bounded, frozen questions' adds specificity about the nature of the items.

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 this is the tool to use when you need an overview of all published task templates, contrasting with get_task_template which would fetch a single one. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names make the use case reasonably clear. A clear context is provided, though no explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tool's purpose (reporting stage and capability availability) and notes that capabilities are gated, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any rate/auth considerations. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Report the current stage...'), followed by a precise clarification of the output content and its authoritative role. Every word adds value.

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 (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns (stage, availability, reasons), and its unique position among siblings. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to document. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and no compensation is needed.

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 'Report' and identifies the resource: current stage and per-capability availability with stated reasons. It also clarifies its unique role as the authoritative source for gated capabilities, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with resources and task templates.

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

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

The description implies when to use it—whenever an agent needs to check capability availability or gating status—by declaring it the authoritative answer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously different (resource/task templates), so the usage context is clear.

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 carry the behavioral burden. It contributes useful context by saying the catalogue is 'public' and that matching is title-only, which are not visible in the schema. However, it does not disclose what the result looks like, whether query and kind are independently optional, or any pagination/ordering behavior.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, scope, resource types, and matching field without filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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

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

The tool is simple, with only three optional parameters and no output schema, so the description plus schema is nearly sufficient for invocation. However, the absence of any return-value description, the fact that all parameters are optional, and the lack of alternative routing make it only minimally complete rather than fully self-contained.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description partly compensates by enumerating the five kind values and indicating that query words are matched against titles. The limit parameter is not addressed, and the optionality/combination semantics of the parameters are left implicit.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('public catalogue') and enumerates the exact resource types covered, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from siblings like get_resource or list_task_templates. The qualifier 'by title' further sharpens what the tool searches.

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 this is the search-by-title entry point for the public catalogue, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_resource or list_task_templates, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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