SpaceTime Server

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds that it returns a plain text report and checks the 'latest' availability result, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is checked and the return format. It does not mention error conditions or what happens if no result is available, but these are minor omissions for such a simple 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds semantic context around the result ('latest availability result'), even though there is nothing to explain about parameters themselves.

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 ('Check') and resource ('the latest availability result for the built-in Cealing Host'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like generate_host or search_host. It identifies exactly what the tool does and what it reports.

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 usage context is implied: use this to check the availability of the Cealing Host. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and sibling tools are not referenced. This leaves the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over search_host or generate_host.

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 description adds the context that the response is returned as text, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, network access implications, or handling of methods/body. Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description carries a burden it only partially fulfills.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Forward an HTTP request') and states the return type. It is concise and contains no filler 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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a proxy tool. It leaves unanswered questions: what does 'target URL path' mean exactly? How does the method parameter affect the request? Are there restrictions on target URLs? No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the response format beyond 'body as text', which it does not.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides; in fact, it introduces slight confusion by calling the url parameter a 'path' when the schema describes it as a target URL with a default hostname.

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 forwards an HTTP request through the Ona Prox proxy and returns the response body as text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_host or get_file, though it uses the ambiguous phrase 'target URL path' when the actual parameter is a URL/hostname with a default value of i.pximg.net.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool (e.g., search_host) would be preferred. The description is purely functional and lacks decision-support information.

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, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON array with domain patterns and the resolved IP address, providing additional output context without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds value: purpose then output format. No superfluous text.

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 appropriately specifies the return type and contents. It covers the main behavior and output, though it doesn't detail the exact structure of domain patterns, which is acceptable for the tool's 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 only parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema, including its default value. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating 'for a domain', so the baseline of 3 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 the specific verb 'Generate' and names the resource 'Cealing Host rule', with a clear scope 'for a domain'. It also states the output format, and the verb distinguishes it from siblings like check_host/search_host.

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 alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context implies usage when creating a rule, but it doesn't reference sibling tools like check_host or forward_proxy, nor mention edge cases like when to use this vs search_host.

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 and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that text files are returned as content directly, while binary files return a download URL. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps set expectations for the response.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one necessary behavioral detail. Every word 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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the two return modes (direct text vs. download URL), which is critical for the agent to know what to expect. No additional context is needed.

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 describes the 'path' parameter with examples and has 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description does not add any additional detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a file from a specific storage system ('SpaceTime Server storage'), using the verb 'Get' and a defined resource. It also clarifies distinct behavior for text vs binary files. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'check_host' and 'search_host', which serve different purposes.

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 context: use this to retrieve files from SpaceTime Server storage. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated (host management, proxies), so the intended usage is unambiguous. No exclusions are needed for such a specific read operation.

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 destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds return behavior ('Returns the matching rule entry if found'), but does not disclose what happens when no match is found or what a rule entry contains, so it only partially supplements the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify the structure of the returned rule entry or behavior when no match is found. It is adequate for basic usage but leaves edge cases unaddressed.

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 fully documents the 'domain' parameter with a description and default, so the description adds no extra parameter context beyond restating that it searches for a domain. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 100% 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's function: 'Search the built-in Cealing Host for a domain' — specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return value ('Returns the matching rule entry if found'), which differentiates it from siblings like check_host and generate_host, but the term 'Cealing Host' is ambiguous.

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 for searching a domain in the host, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., check_host or forward_proxy). It provides no exclusions or conditions, though the purpose is clear enough for basic usage.

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