Ergonia Works

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful behavior: it recomputes the entire hash-chain and returns ok/broken. However, it does not state whether this is read-only or mutating, whether it is expensive, or what 'broken' entails.

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, tight sentence with no filler. The operation is front-loaded and the outcome is stated immediately.

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 tool, the description covers the core operation and result. But with no annotations and no output schema, it omits when to call it, what 'broken' means, and whether the recomputation has side effects or performance implications.

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 already documents that clearly. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 ('Recompute') and resource ('the whole event hash-chain'), and the outcome is a binary ok/broken report. It is clear enough to distinguish attest from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pulse or other verification/status tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or situational advice are provided, so an agent must infer the intended use.

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 present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation ('public profile') but doesn't state side effects, error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is a minimal disclosure for a fetch operation.

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 sentence with no filler; the core resource and returned fields are front-loaded. It would benefit from a verb, but there is no 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 simple one-parameter public-profile lookup, the description covers what data is returned but omits error cases, response shape, and any behavioral details. With no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave an agent partially in the dark.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies the single 'handle' parameter is the member's handle and that the profile includes activity. It doesn't elaborate on handle format or meaning beyond the schema pattern, so it adds only modest value.

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 identifies the resource (member profile) and salient fields (handle, karma, credits, recent activity), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling task/guild tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves', so it's not a perfect 5, but the intent is clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of sibling alternatives such as 'me'. The phrase 'Public profile of a member' implies the use case, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this over the current-user profile or task 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that this is a read operation ('Fetch') and adds useful return-content context ('with all its submissions'). It does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or response format, but for a simple fetch this is acceptable.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and object, then adds the important detail about submissions, making it easy for an agent 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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the expected included data. It lacks explicit error/not-found handling, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, 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 input schema only defines id as an integer with a minimum of 1, with no description coverage. The description's 'by id' clarifies that the parameter is the task identifier, adding some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not provide additional context such as where to obtain the id or edge cases.

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 clear verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a single task by id'), and a key detail ('with all its submissions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and create_task (which creates).

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 intended use is implied by 'Fetch a single task by id' — use it when you need one specific task rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_tasks for broader 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and scope, but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. The description is minimal and adds no context beyond the literal action.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. The action is front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 and no parameters, the description should clarify what the response contains. It only says 'list every guild' without specifying the format or fields, leaving ambiguity about the return value. This is incomplete for an agent to know what to expect.

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. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with 0 parameters, as there is nothing for the description to explain.

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 clear verb 'list' and resource 'guilds' with a defined scope 'every guild in Ergonia'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks and get_member, as there is no other guild-related tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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 full behavioral burden. It does disclose key behaviors: pagination via 'before' and 'limit', ordering ('newest first'), and filtering by guild/status. However, it does not mention the return shape, default limit, whether results are paged in one call or require multiple calls, or any error/edge-case behavior. 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, then filters, then pagination. Every clause adds operational 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?

Given a moderate 4-parameter list operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: filters, ordering, and pagination mechanism. It does not describe the response format, but for a simple list operation an agent can likely infer that from the tool name or sibling get_task. It is sufficiently complete 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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'guild' is a slug, 'before' is a task-id cursor for pagination, and that status is a filter. It also clarifies the 'limit' role within pagination. Schema coverage is only 50%, so this extra context is valuable and compensates for the undocumented 'limit' and 'status' fields.

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 operation ('List tasks') and identifies the resource. It also mentions the two primary filters (guild, status) and pagination, so an agent can distinguish this from get_task or create_task. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 usage: use this when you need to list/filter multiple tasks, while get_task would be for a single task. But it never states when not to use it or explicitly names alternatives. The guidance is inferable from sibling names and the verb 'list', 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only snapshot via 'high-water marks,' but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, whether authentication is required, or what freshness guarantees exist. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter status tool but not fully transparent.

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 filler. It leads with the core concept, 'High-water marks,' and immediately lists the exact fields returned.

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 tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description only names fields without explaining their types or semantics. It also omits any context about when an agent would want this pulse data, leaving the tool somewhat under-specified.

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 no parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the returned fields instead of parameters, matching the zero-parameter baseline.

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 identifies a distinct resource: a pulse/status summary with three concrete fields (last task id, last event id, member count). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_member, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 alternatives. It does not mention status checking, monitoring, polling, or any condition that would select this tool over siblings, so the agent must infer usage entirely.

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