liftlog

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 output format (CSV text), the fields included, and the scope (full log). Lacks details like size or read-only status, but those are self-evident for an export 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and format, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (CSV text) and its content. It is complete for an agent to invoke without further 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. 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?

Clearly states the tool exports the full lift compliance log as CSV text, with a specific verb and resource. The content description (operator/machine, requirement, next due, status, chase history) distinguishes it from sibling tools that summarize or filter.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to get the full log in CSV format. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'full' qualifier implies it's for complete data dumps, contrasting with sibling summary 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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific categories included in the summary, which is useful, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, data freshness, or output format. As a 'Get' operation, read-only behavior is implied, but not explicitly confirmed.

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 action and resource, then lists the summary contents in a compact list. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned by enumerating the summary fields. There are no open questions about what the tool does or what data it returns.

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 parameter meanings. The schema is trivially fully covered, and the description adds context by listing what the summary contains. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a param-less tool.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('lift compliance summary') with a specific list of contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_lift_log or list_citable_items by focusing on aggregated totals rather than raw data.

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 this tool (when you need a high-level summary of compliance statuses) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tools are not referenced, so there is no direct comparison, but the summary nature is evident.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the default 30-day window and the scope of items listed, but does not elaborate on whether overdue items are included, sort order, or any side effects. This is 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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states the verb and resource, then provides the key parameter behavior, making it extremely efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only list tool with one fully described parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior. It is missing minor details like overdue handling or sorting, but these are not essential for basic understanding of a straightforward list operation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'days' parameter, including its default value. The description's mention of 'N days (default 30)' simply restates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the resource ('operator evaluations, inspections, and maintenance intervals') with a temporal scope ('due within the next N days'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_requirements or get_lift_summary by specifying exactly what is returned.

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 the tool: when you need a list of requirements due within a look-ahead window. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for a summary or export). The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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 indicates a read-only listing operation ('List') and discloses the ordering ('Most serious first'), but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, what fields are returned, or whether any filtering beyond overdue/missing is applied. Adds useful context but leaves some 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, well-structured sentence with an em dash adding clarifying detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to meaning. No redundancy or 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is listed (overdue/missing compliance items), why they matter (OSHA citation/injury investigation), and how they are ordered (most serious first). It could mention something about return fields or whether it includes resolved items, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The empty schema is fully covered, and the description correctly avoids mentioning parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List overdue or missing compliance items' and adds a concrete scope — items that would be 'citable in an OSHA inspection or damaging in an injury investigation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_requirements_due or search_requirements by focusing on citable, high-severity 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 when to use the tool: when you need to see overdue or missing compliance items that carry serious consequences, sorted by severity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable selection among 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns matching records with next due date and status, which is useful output context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Search' implies it) and does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination. The schema description adds case-insensitivity and shorthand behavior, but the tool description itself remains basic.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. It contains no fluff and every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core needs: it states what is searched, what is returned (next due date and status), and implies the ability to list all records when the query is omitted. It lacks explicit mention of limits or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient for an agent to select and 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 input schema has one parameter with 100% coverage: 'query' is thoroughly described ('Text to match against operator, machine, or requirement (case-insensitive; shorthand like "PM" or "aerial lift" works). Omit to list everything.'). The tool description only repeats the fields to search and adds output details, but does not add new semantic information about the parameter itself, matching the baseline for high 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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'lift compliance requirements' and explicitly lists the searchable attributes ('by operator name, machine, or requirement type'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_requirements_due (likely focuses on due items) and list_citable_items, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the tool's search capabilities and notes that omitting the query lists everything, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_requirements_due or export_lift_log. There is no direct exclusions or comparative guidance, only an implied usage context.

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