liftlog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the operation is an export producing CSV text, implying a read-only action, but does not explicitly disclose non-destructive behavior or any side effects, authentication requirements, or output limitations (e.g., max size). There is no contradiction, but the description is minimal beyond the core export function.

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 with no padding. Every clause adds specific information: the resource, the format, and the included fields. It achieves maximum economy without sacrificing clarity.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and the tool is a straightforward export, the description covers the essential details: what is exported, the format, and the columns. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination or size, but for a log export that is a minor omission. The presence of sibling tools that summarize vs. export reduces the need for additional clarification.

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 the description does not need to explain inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds value by detailing the content of the CSV export, which provides context for what the output will contain. This is sufficient.

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 ('Export') and a clear resource ('full lift compliance log') with an explicit output format ('as CSV text') and enumerates the content columns (operator or machine, requirement, next due, status, chase history). This is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools that summarize or query rather than export the entire log.

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 implies this is for exporting the full log, which distinguishes it from siblings that provide summaries or filtered views, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would need to infer that 'full' means no filtering, but the description does not explicitly say 'use this instead of search_requirements for a complete export'.

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 burden of disclosing side effects and access requirements. It uses the verb 'get,' which implies a read-only operation, and lists the data returned, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no specific permissions, or has any rate limits. For a simple read summary, this is acceptable but not fully transparent about potential edge cases (e.g., does it require prior data entry?).

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 front-loads the core action ('Get the lift compliance summary') followed by a concise enumeration of what the summary includes. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally terse for a parameterless 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 simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose—the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know to call it. It specifies the collected metrics clearly, so the expected response is inferable. However, it does not mention whether the result is a single object, list, or map, though the 'totals' phrasing implies numeric aggregates. This minor gap is acceptable given the lack of 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. It correctly notes the absence of parameters, and no additional semantics are required.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('lift compliance summary'), then enumerates the exact components included (totals for tracked requirements, not done, overdue and citable, due this week, awaiting records). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_requirements or list_citable_items, which focus on individual items rather than an aggregate summary.

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 (when you need a summary of compliance metrics) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state exclusion criteria. For instance, it doesn't say 'use this for aggregate totals, use get_requirements_due for detailed due items.' The purpose makes it reasonably clear, but explicit routing guidance is missing.

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 or output schema, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the read-only 'List' nature and the date-window semantics, but does not state what the response contains, whether overdue items are excluded/included, or how days are counted. These are plausible ambiguities for an agent invoking the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, targets, and key parameter are all present, with the default factored into the same concise clause.

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 one-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the objects, the filter criterion, and the default. It lacks an explicit statement about return shape or behavior for past-due items, but this is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 already documents the 'days' parameter and its default value, and the description repeats the same default without adding additional semantic detail. Parameter meaning is therefore adequately covered but not enriched 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 ('List') and names the exact resource types (operator evaluations, inspections, maintenance intervals) plus the temporal filter ('due within next N days'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_requirements, which implies searching rather than listing by due window.

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 clear usage context: use this tool when you need items due within a specified look-ahead windowyellow The default of 30 days helps an agent know what happens when no parameter is supplied. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is specific enough to route selection.

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

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

No annotations exist, and the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states what items are included, why they matter, and defines the ordering ('Most serious first'), which is substantive behavioral context for an agent.

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 communicates purpose, selection criteria, relevance, and ordering with zero 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 list tool with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly and interpret results: what is returned and in what order. No critical operational detail 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?

The tool has no parametersags, so the schema leaves nothing to document. The description adds semantic context about what the list contains, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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') plus a clearly scoped resource ('overdue or missing compliance items'), and sharpens it with relevance cues ('citable in OSHA inspection, injury investigation'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like get_requirements_due.

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 provides clear context by naming the selection criteria (overdue/missing) and the situation where this list matters (OSHA inspection, investigations). It doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, so the when-to-use guidance is good but not fully explicit.

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 burden. It discloses that matching records are returned with next due date and status, which conveys a read-only result. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, no auth requirements, no rate limits, or how results are ordered/paginated.

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 with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds meaning; no filler, redundancy, or boilerplate.

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 simple single-parameter interface, the description covers what the tool returns and the search dimensions. However, it lacks guidance on filtering behavior, result set limits, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 already documents the query parameter well, including case-insensitivity and 'omit to list everything.' The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so this dimension stays at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a clear verb and object ('Search lift compliance requirements') and specifies the fields to search by (operator, machine, requirement type). It effectively defines the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tools.

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 given on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_lift_summary or list_citable_items. The description implies it is a search/list tool, but it does not state alternatives, exclusions, or edge cases where another tool should be used.

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