Boterly

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, closed-world read, so the description only needs to add operational context. 'Sourced fixes' usefully implies answers come with citations, but nothing is said about result shape, what happens when no fix is found, or whether it consults a knowledge base versus other tools.

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: verb, resource, then illustrative examples. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, though the four-item example list is on the edge of being longer than needed.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input well but leaves the return contract implicit. An agent knows when to call it and roughly what to pass, but not what kinds of results to expect 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's example symptom strings show the expected granularity and phrasing for the 'symptom' argument, which meaningfully guides value construction beyond 'What is going wrong, in the user's words.'

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 pairs a specific verb ('look up sourced fixes') with a specific resource ('a Grok Bot problem') and backs it with four concrete symptom examples. It is clearly distinct from the sibling template/install tools, though it never explicitly names them as out of scope.

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

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

The examples ('routine not running', 'skills missing after import', 'plugin will not connect', 'uses too much usage') give an agent clear triggers for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or pointing to alternatives for non-diagnostic queries.

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 annotations already establish a non-read-only, closed-world mutation, and the description adds the useful scope detail that it targets 'this Bot'. It does not say what happens on re-install, whether existing templates are overwritten or duplicated, or whether the install is all-or-nothing, which are the real behavioral questions for a bulk mutation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a catalog where each parenthetical maps directly to an enum value. It runs long on the catalog, but every clause corresponds to a parameter choice rather than filler.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the main gaps are the return shape (what templates were created, what ids come back) and duplicate/idempotency behavior, plus how it relates to install_template and my_templates. The bundle catalog is thorough, but the post-install contract is not described.

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 only labels the parameter 'Bundle id.' with a bare enum; the description expands every one of the five enum values into the concrete templates it installs (e.g. founder = morning brief, competitors, leads, weekly chief of staff). This converts opaque ids into meaningful choices and is genuine 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Install a kit of templates for one role into this Bot in one go.' The phrase 'kit of templates ... in one go' implicitly separates it from install_template (single) and search_templates (read), but it never names a sibling, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'in one go', which suggests bulk provisioning versus installing one template at a time. There is no explicit 'use this when onboarding a role / use install_template for a single template' routing, and no stated prerequisites such as whether templates must be searched first.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: 'this_bot' adds skills, rules and paused routines without replacing the Bot's role, while 'new_bot' returns a setup prompt. This clarifies the write-like effect and different return modes. It does not detail what 'this_bot' returns or whether the operation is idempotent, but it adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the target-specific behavior. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.

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

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

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior of both target modes and avoids replacing the current Bot's role. It omits what 'this_bot' returns and any permission or idempotency details, which are minor but real 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for the 'target' parameter by explaining the default and the distinct effects of 'this_bot' versus 'new_bot'. The 'slug' parameter is left to the schema, which already says it comes from search_templates.

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 and resource: 'Get step-by-step install instructions for one template.' It also distinguishes the two installation targets. It does not explicitly name install_bundle as the alternative for multi-template installs, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description clearly explains the two usage modes: 'this_bot' for adding skills/rules/routines to the current Bot, and 'new_bot' for returning a setup prompt. It does not state when to choose this tool over install_bundle or search_templates, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit 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?

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing what the listing includes: installed templates, newer-version indicators, and plan/installs left, plus the reinstall route.

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 tight sentences with the core listing behavior front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by routing the update action to install_template.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough return-content context and the relevant follow-up action. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying pagination or the exact shape of the plan/installs-left data, but the essential information is present.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb, "List," and a precise resource/scope: templates installed by this Boterly account. It also distinguishes the result set by mentioning newer-version status and plan/installs left, and it names install_template for the related update 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?

It gives clear guidance for the update path by saying to reinstall with install_template, but it does not explicitly say when to use my_templates versus search_templates or diagnose_problem. The intended use is implied by "installed" rather than stated with 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the return field set (slug, name, tagline, category, required plugins, usage level), which is real value since no output schema exists. It omits any statement about result limits or pagination, so an agent can't tell whether a broad query returns everything.

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

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

Three short sentences: purpose first, then return contents, then the empty-query behavior. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the empty-query case, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is the undocumented interaction between query and category (intersection vs override) and any result-count limits.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that an empty query lists all templates, clarifying the behavioral consequence of omitting the optional 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Grok Bot templates') plus the retrieval axis ('by job'), which is enough to separate it from install_template and my_templates. It never explicitly names the sibling it differs from (e.g. browsing already-installed templates), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Gives one concrete usage rule — 'Leave query empty to list all' — which tells the agent how to enumerate the catalog. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over my_templates or install_template, leaving the boundary between search and installed-template listing to inference.

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