COTRUGLI Agent Recruitment

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope information by noting the targets are 'publicly named' and includes the foreign-agent onboarding door, but it does not describe return shape or ordering. This is adequate given the annotations, but not especially 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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the resource, scope, and a clarifying example of contents. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with strong annotations, the description gives enough context about what is being listed. It could be more complete by indicating what fields or details each build target includes, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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: 'List COTRUGLI's publicly named next build targets.' It also names a concrete included item, the foreign-agent onboarding door, which clarifies scope and distinguishes this from siblings like get_public_entrypoints.

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 establishes when to use the tool: when the current publicly named next build targets are needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a parameterless read-only list 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?

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description does not add meaningful behavioral details beyond these, so a neutral score is appropriate.

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 but is verbose and confusing. It uses jargon like 'externally built agent' and 'human commitment rule' without definition, making it less concise in meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fails to indicate what the tool returns. It is unclear whether the output is a status object, a boolean, or something else, leaving the agent without essential contextual information.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics here.

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 the verb 'Explain' which is inaccurate for a status retrieval tool; it is unclear what the tool actually does. The phrase 'current public onboarding boundary' and 'human commitment rule' are ambiguous without additional context.

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 the sibling tools like get_build_targets or list_opportunities. The description gives no context for selecting 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the opportunity is 'public' and the id is 'stable', which provides useful operational context beyond the annotations. Gaps like missing-id behavior are not disclosed, but this is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 starts with the verb and object, followed by the qualifier about the id source. Zero redundant words; every element 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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states what is returned, how to obtain the id, and the public nature. No output schema exists, so return format is not described, but that is not a gap for a straightforward retrieval 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the 'id' parameter. It compensates by stating the id is the stable one returned from list_opportunities, which gives provenance and meaning. It does not detail format or constraints, but the source is the key semantic that makes the parameter actionable.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'one public contribution opportunity', and the identifier source ('stable id returned from list_opportunities'). It explicitly differentiates this from list_opportunities by indicating it retrieves a single item by id, which is a clear sibling distinction.

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 gives explicit guidance that the id must come from list_opportunities, implying you should call list_opportunities first if you lack an id. It does not explicitly state exclusions or mention other sibling tools, but the prerequisite context is clear and actionable.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the main safety profile. The description adds the "public" aspect and "before contacting" context, but these are largely implied by the tool name and do not disclose substantial behavior beyond what annotations provide. The description does not mention response format, pagination, or access controls.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action (Return), the resource (public pages), and the use context (before contacting COTRUGLI). No filler or redundant phrasing, and it earns its place for a simple read-only 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?

For a 0-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and usage timing. It is slightly ambiguous what exactly constitutes a "public page" (URLs, endpoint names, titles), and no return structure is described, hence not a 5. Still, the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline is 4 for no-parameter tools; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 ("Return") and names the exact resource ("public pages") along with the intended audience and timing ("before contacting COTRUGLI"). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_opportunity or list_opportunities, which target different resources.

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 phrase "before contacting COTRUGLI" establishes a clear workflow context for when to call this tool. It does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude siblings, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer this is for pre-contact information gathering rather than other operations.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only a scope constraint (public opportunities) and the listing action, but no further behavioral traits such as return format or error handling.

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, focused sentence. It front-loads the main action and then adds the optional filter condition, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description does not indicate what the response format will be (e.g., list of objects) or any pagination/error behavior. For a simple list tool it may suffice, but it leaves key context about the result unspecified.

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 provides no description for the capability parameter. The tool description explains it is an optional filter keyword but does not define acceptable values or provide examples, partially compensating 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 the tool lists public COTRUGLI contribution opportunities and identifies the intended audience. It distinguishes from sibling tools that fetch single items or other entry points.

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 an optional filter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_opportunity or get_public_entrypoints. No guidance on 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.