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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'scaffold' which implies creating new tools, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., does it modify the ledger? does it create actual files? is it reversible?). It also omits any permission requirements or potential impacts, leaving the agent unaware of the tool's mutating nature and consequences.

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 that communicates the primary action efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not perfectly structured for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema and only one optional parameter, the description should still explain what 'repetition ledger' means, what makes a tool 'eligible,' and what 'scaffold' entails. It also does not mention the return format (though output schema exists) or any dependencies. The lack of annotations makes this a significant gap for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter. It does not. The description never mentions the limit or how it affects the ledger review or scaffolding process. The agent has no semantic understanding of the only parameter, making it impossible to use correctly.

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 reviews a 'repetition ledger' and scaffolds 'eligible reusable tools not yet created.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core action understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suggest_library_tools' or 'create_library_tool,' which could overlap in function, so it misses the top score for 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over related siblings. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone, which is inadequate given the large sibling set.

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 of disclosing behavior. It only states that this prepares a query and that execution is separate, but it does not reveal side effects, return value characteristics, permissions, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The minimal disclosure leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual effect.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specifies the tool. Conciseness is not about being minimal; it is about being appropriately sized. Here, the description is too brief to be helpful, lacking necessary details about purpose, usage, and parameters.

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 three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'prepare' produces, what the output schema represents, or how to set the parameters. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does not mention prompt, quality, or reasoning_effort at all. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters, and an agent cannot infer what each parameter controls from the text.

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 verb ('prepare') and a resource ('a routed query'), so it conveys a general action. However, it is vague about what 'prepare' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like prepare_task or route_task, which likely perform similar preparation steps. The clarity is adequate but not specific enough to distinguish from alternatives.

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 that execution requires run_prepared_task, implying a sequence, but it gives no guidance on when to choose answer_query over prepare_task or route_task. There are no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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 a useful behavioral note: 'Script execution still obeys global configuration.' This clarifies that approval does not bypass global config, which is valuable. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is concise.

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 has a simple schema (one required string param) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'reviewed' means, what approval changes, and whether it is reversible. For a state-changing tool, this is a moderate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'slug' refers to (e.g., the tool's unique identifier). The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic detail 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 states a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a reviewed tool active and approved'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like disable_library_tool and create_library_tool. It could be slightly more explicit about the workflow context, but the core purpose 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?

The description implies this is used after a tool has been reviewed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like approve_preflight or run_library_tool. The context is inferable from the name and sibling list, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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 usefully discloses a key trait: approval does not begin provider work. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permissions, or idempotency of approving a locked preflight.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action and a key non-effect front-loaded. 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be documented. Still, the description leaves unclear what 'locked preflight' means, how the confirmation token is obtained, and what happens after approval, which an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. Property names like confirmation_token and response_detail are suggestive, but the description does not explain where confirmation_token comes from or what response_detail controls.

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 ('Approve a locked preflight') and clarifies scope by stating it does not begin provider work. It distinguishes the tool's intent from run/confirm siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 context of use is implied: use when a preflight is locked and needs approval. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over confirm_and_run or approve_library_tool, nor any exclusion criteria.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description gives no information about side effects, whether the tool performs reads or writes, permissions required, reversibility, or what happens to the 'voters' and 'synthesis route' after preparation. It is entirely opaque regarding behavior.

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 short sentence, which is structurally minimal, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loaded actionable information and does not earn its brevity by conveying essential details; it is more a placeholder than a helpful summary.

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 six parameters, one required, and no annotation or schema description, the tool requires substantial explanation. The description provides almost no context about inputs, outputs, side effects, or usage, making it incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanations, and the description also fails to explain any of the six parameters (question, voters, quality, allow_paid, reasoning_effort, excluded_providers). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw field names, leaving agents to guess 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 states an action 'Prepare' and a resource 'eligible free-model voters and a synthesis route', but it is vague about what 'prepare' entails and what the tool ultimately does. It does not mention the primary required parameter 'question' or any concrete outcome, so an agent cannot clearly infer the tool's purpose or differentiate it from siblings like 'prepare_task' or 'route_task'.

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 only usage hint is 'before Working', which implies it is a prerequisite step, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it fits into a broader workflow.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'preserving required context' which hints at a key behavior, but doesn't explain what 'prepare' means operationally, whether this mutates anything, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. The description is too thin to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and constraint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 has an output schema and only one required parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a vague description, an agent cannot confidently invoke it. The description doesn't explain the compression behavior, quality levels, or how the output relates to the input. It is not complete enough for correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain what 'quality' values mean, what format 'conversation' should be in, or how 'reasoning_effort' affects behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 says 'Prepare conversation compression while preserving required context.' It identifies a specific action (prepare) and resource (conversation compression), and adds a constraint (preserving required context). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like prepare_task or optimize_prompt, and 'prepare' is somewhat vague about what the tool actually 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With 38 sibling tools, an agent has no way to know when to choose compress_conversation over other preparation or optimization 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 must disclose side effects and behavior. It mentions deprecation and a two-step action, but the phrasing 'approve preflight only, then call run_prepared_task' could be interpreted as either a combined operation or an instruction for the agent to call the sibling separately. It does not clarify whether state is mutated, what happens on failure, or any permissions needed, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, front-loading the deprecation status, and avoids unnecessary words. However, its brevity contributes to the ambiguity rather than clarity, so it is not fully effective.

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 tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a non-trivial operation, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the token, the exact behavior, the output format (though output schema exists), or when to use it, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the confirmation_token parameter—its format, source, or purpose. The agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 it is a deprecated compatibility alias and mentions 'approve preflight' and 'call run_prepared_task', giving a clear resource and action. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool performs both actions automatically or only approves preflight and instructs the agent to call the sibling separately. This lack of precision weakens purpose clarity.

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 says 'deprecated compatibility alias,' which implies it is for backward compatibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the separate approve_preflight and run_prepared_task tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for selecting it. Minimal guidance is provided.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says what artifacts are created but does not mention side effects like filesystem writes, registry updates, approval requirements, activation consequences, or whether the operation can be undone. The 'activate' parameter further hints at side effects that are not explained.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise, but its brevity comes at the cost of important behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a create operation in a library-management workflow, the description is too sparse. The output schema may document return values, but the agent still lacks needed context about lifecycle, approval, activation, and side effects, leaving the description incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate. It does not explain meaning of tags, activate, or triggers, which are non-obvious and have no descriptions in the schema. Although name, description, task, and prompt_template are somewhat inferable from context, the tool's own documentation adds no parameter-level 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 names a specific verb ('Create') and a resource ('documented reusable prompt tool'), and identifies concrete outputs (manifest, README, launcher script). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_library_tools, read_library_tool, run_library_tool, and disable_library_tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, approval workflows, or whether activation is automatic. With siblings like approve_library_tool and disable_library_tool nearby, an agent cannot tell when creation requires follow-up.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side-effect boundary: evidence, README, and version history are retained. However, it does not explain what happens to existing invocations, access controls, or the tool's availability after disabling, leaving key behavioral context unclear.

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 action ('Disable') and then adds the most important scope qualifier (no deletion of supporting artifacts), which makes 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a state-changing operation with no annotations, the description could reasonably mention how a slug is obtained, whether disabling is reversible, and what immediate effect occurs after the call.

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 only a 'Slug' string with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never references the slug parameter or explains how it identifies the tool. Since the description must compensate for the empty schema documentation but does not, the parameter's meaning and expected value source remain under-explained.

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 ('Disable') with a clear resource ('a reusable tool') and adds an important clarifying constraint ('without deleting its evidence, README, or version history'). This distinguishes it from related sibling operations like approve_library_tool or create_library_tool, even without explicitly naming them.

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 conveys a basic action but gives no guidance about when to choose disable versus alternatives such as deleting the tool, editing it, or approving it. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or whether the tool can be re-enabled later, so an agent must infer usage from the 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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important trait: this tool only prepares the editing task and does not execute it, requiring a follow-up call to run_prepared_task. It does not describe side effects, reversibility, or whether approval is needed, but the core non-executing behavior is disclosed.

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; the dependency on run_prepared_task is added in a compact second clause. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the parameter and usage details the tool likely needs.

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 described prepare-then-execute workflow and a 4-parameter schema with no param descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It identifies the required next step but omits parameter guidance, when to use this tool vs generic preparation, and any mention of approval or pipeline steps. The output schema helps but cannot compensate for absent usage and parameter semantics.

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 0%, and the description adds no explicit parameter meaning. It does not mention document, instructions, quality, or reasoning_effort, and 'conservative' is not clearly mapped to any schema property. The description fails to compensate 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 states a specific action ('Prepare') applied to a resource ('conservative document editing'), and clarifies it does not perform the edit itself by requiring run_prepared_task. This is more specific than a vague phrase, but 'conservative document editing' remains slightly abstract because it does not say what artifact is produced.

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 clear workflow guidance: execution requires run_prepared_task, so the agent knows this tool is a preparation step. However, it does not explain when to choose edit_document over alternatives like prepare_task, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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 responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'lock' which implies a state change or reservation, but does not explain what gets locked, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. It also gives no indication of permissions, costs, or output characteristics.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified and fails to front-load any actionable information. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no value to the agent.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what the output looks like. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it mentions none of the five parameters (prompt, quality, allow_paid, aspect_ratio, output_format). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 'Prepare and lock an image-generation route before execution' is vague and does not clearly state that this tool generates an image. The verb 'prepare and lock' suggests a pre-execution step rather than the actual generation, which conflicts with the tool's name 'generate_image'. It fails to specify the primary action and does not distinguish from sibling tools like generate_video.

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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no way to know if this is the right tool for image generation or a preparatory step, and no alternatives are referenced.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool 'prepares and locks' a route, which implies it may not immediately generate video, but it does not clarify side effects, cost implications, or whether the route is actually executed. The description leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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 wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, it is too under-specified to be truly useful; conciseness here comes at the expense of clarity. Front-loading is fine, but the content itself is thin.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It lacks guidance on required prompt semantics, how size/quality/seconds affect output, what allow_paid controls, and what locking a route entails. For a tool with five parameters and no annotations, this is a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. With five parameters including prompt, size, quality, seconds, and allow_paid, the description provides no meaning beyond the raw schema field names. This is a complete miss for 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 says 'Prepare and lock an official video-generation route before execution,' which is vague about what the tool actually does. It is unclear whether this tool generates a video, locks a route, or merely prepares one for later execution. The verb and resource are present but the overall meaning is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like generate_image or route_task.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it should be used before other pipeline tools, whether it requires prior setup, or what conditions would make it inappropriate. The phrase 'before execution' hints at sequencing, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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 usefully discloses that the operation performs no provider I/O and targets cached zero-payload probes. However, it does not say whether the invalidation is destructive to existing cached results, idempotent, or what happens afterward.

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 sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('cached', 'zero-payload', 'without provider I/O') contributes meaning, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 and has an output schema, but the description omits the semantics of its only parameter and provides no scenario guidance. An agent cannot reliably determine how to populate or omit `provider`.

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%, and the description never mentions the only parameter, `provider`, even though it is optional with a default empty string. The description adds no meaning about what values are valid, what the default behavior is, or how provider scopes the invalidation.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Invalidate') and object ('cached zero-payload pipeline probes') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('without provider I/O'). It is unambiguous and does not merely restate the tool name.

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 a context (cache invalidation that avoids provider I/O) but never states when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling tool might be an alternative. There is no actionable routing guidance.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It signals a read-style operation with 'Return' and discloses three output categories (paths, counts, recent detected patterns), which is useful. However, it does not clarify side effects, staleness, or what 'detected patterns' means at runtime.

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 with no filler or repeated information. It front-loads the verb and immediately names the key data categories, making it efficient for an agent 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?

Given the zero-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context about what the call returns. It is slightly incomplete in not guiding the agent on when to prefer this tool over nearby siblings, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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 schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 identifies a concrete resource ('persistent tool-library paths, counts, and recent detected patterns'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_library_tools or pipeline_status, so it stops 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_library_tools, search_tool_library, or pipeline_status. No context, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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 full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly says so and does not disclose default filtering, pagination, or ordering behavior. It only mentions possible statuses, which is parameter-level context rather than tool behavior.

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 the action and resource first, followed by the key parameter values. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits default behavior and does not differentiate this tool from the sibling search_tool_library, which weakens correct selection and invocation. A sentence explaining the default status and pointing to the search alternative would complete it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by listing valid statuses: active, draft, disabled, archived. However, it does not define the meaning of the default empty string (whether it means all statuses or only active) or whether multiple statuses can be passed.

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 and resource: 'List persistent reusable tools'. It also names the status dimension, giving a clear sense of scope. It does not explicitly contrast with search_tool_library, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The description does not say when to call this tool instead of search_tool_library or read_library_tool, and it does not clarify what the empty status default means. The status sentence implies a filter but provides no selection conditions.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a write action through 'Record' and lists status values, but it does not mention overwrite semantics, idempotency, permissions, or what effect a mark has on downstream pipeline behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The action and status vocabulary are front-loaded, and every part of the sentence contributes useful 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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. However, provider semantics and detail usage are left implicit, and there is no behavioral context for a write operation, leaving meaningful 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 has 0% description coverage and only exposes bare string types, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the status parameter by listing the four allowed values, but it leaves provider and detail entirely unexplained.

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 ('Record') with a clear resource ('operator pipeline mark') and enumerates the exact allowed values: ready, degraded, blocked, or maintenance. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pipeline_status tool, which reads pipeline state rather than writing a mark.

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 through the verb 'Record' and the status vocabulary, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer mark_pipeline over alternatives like pipeline_status or invalidate_pipeline_probe_cache. It provides clear context, yet no when-not-to-use guidance.

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 carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'List' but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other operational traits. The sorting behavior is disclosed, but little else.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the sorting qualifier adds relevant detail without bloat.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'limit' means or when to choose this tool over siblings. The output schema covers return values, but other aspects an agent needs are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the low 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?

Uses a specific verb 'List' and specific resource 'model tiers', plus a clear sorting criterion. This makes the tool's job unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like set_tier_guidance or refresh_model_catalog, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — repeated successful patterns may create a library tool — which is valuable. However, it is vague: it doesn't state what 'may create' means (automatic, asynchronous, threshold-based), what happens on failure, whether the record is persisted/reversible, or any auth/rate implications.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Record one workflow occurrence') and appends the consequential side effect in a second clause. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the agent still lacks field semantics, the trigger conditions for library tool creation, and safety expectations — all unaddressed by the one-line description.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them. The agent is left guessing what belongs in task vs description, what success/tags/sample/project control, and which fields are essential. With low coverage, the description was required to compensate and did not.

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-resource pairing ('Record one workflow occurrence'), which clearly communicates an observation/logging action and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like create_library_tool or analyze_repeated_workflows. The second clause adds purpose context by linking repeated successful patterns to eventual library tool creation, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 imperative 'Record one workflow occurrence' implies when to call the tool (after completing a workflow step), and the 'repeated successful patterns may create a library tool' clause hints at the downstream consequence. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no stated alternatives, and no clarification of how this relates to create_library_tool or analyze_repeated_workflows.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the tool preserves 'binding requirements and literals,' which is a useful constraint, but it fails to state whether the tool transforms the prompt in place, what side effects exist, whether it is a read-only operation, or what the output contains. The behavioral profile is largely opaque.

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 with no filler words and is appropriately concise. However, the brevity is more due to under-specification than deliberate efficiency; the sentence is structured acceptably but sacrifices necessary detail.

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 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. While an output schema exists, the agent still cannot determine when to use the tool, what it does precisely, how parameters work, or what behavior to expect. The description covers almost none of the required context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters (prompt, quality, reasoning_effort). It does not mention any of them. There is no explanation of what 'quality' means, how 'reasoning_effort' affects behavior, or how they relate to token optimization. The description provides zero value for parameter understanding.

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 the resource is 'token optimization' and implies action on a prompt, but the verb 'prepare' is vague—it does not clearly say whether the tool modifies the prompt, returns an optimization plan, or configures settings. It mentions preservation constraints but does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools like compress_conversation or prepare_task.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state typical scenarios, prerequisites, or cases where another tool should be preferred. The absence of any usage context forces the agent to infer applicability from the 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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does not send a user prompt or task data, and that probe mode is restricted to provider metadata. This is strong safety-relevant behavioral transparency, though it omits other behavioral details like permissions or side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds necessary detail about the probe behavior without wasting words. Minor formatting quirks (backticks and line breaks) do not detract significantly.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential safety behavior and the probe mode. However, the undocumented provider parameter and the lack of guidance relative to sibling tools leave meaningful gaps in the overall context an agent needs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of probe=True clearly, but the provider parameter is left entirely undocumented. With two parameters and only one explained, the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 and resource: 'Check pipeline readiness without sending a user prompt.' It conveys the tool's core purpose and adds a meaningful scoping constraint (no user prompt). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling router_status, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 usage-relevant context by explaining the default is local-only and that probe=True permits only a provider health/model-metadata request. This implies when the probe option would be used, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like router_status or other pipeline 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'locked' without explaining what that entails (e.g., side effects, state changes, approval requirements, or reversibility). No information about the output or consequences of calling the tool is provided.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks substantive detail, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description; it reads more like a placeholder.

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 three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not reference any of the actual parameters (objective, quality, reasoning_effort). Instead, it mentions 'prompt, budget, and model' which are not in the schema, potentially misleading the agent. No value is added to parameter understanding.

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 verb ('prepare') and resource ('project planning') and mentions specific elements ('prompt, budget, and model locked'), but it is vague about what 'locked' means and how this differs from sibling tools like prepare_task or route_task. It doesn't clearly specify the tool's core function beyond a general planning action.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this over other planning-related 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is 'silent' and that it gates the 'Working' indicator on working_may_begin, which is genuine context. However, it doesn't explain what happens if working_may_begin is false, whether it mutates state, whether it's idempotent, or what side effects occur on failure — significant gaps for an unannotated 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?

The text is efficient with zero wasted words, which is good for structure. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information about parameters and behavior, so the efficiency doesn't serve the agent well.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a rich output schema. The description provides none of the information an agent needs: parameter meanings, prerequisites, expected output interpretation, or side effects. For a tool of this complexity, the description is grossly inadequate.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the 10 parameters (task, prompt, quality, allow_paid, etc.). With the schema providing no descriptions and the tool description offering zero parameter context, an agent has no way to understand what task, prompt, or the various options mean. The description completely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the verb 'prepare' and resource 'task', and conveys it performs a 'silent preflight' step. However, 'preflight' is jargon that is not explained, and the description doesn't clarify what the preflight actually does or how it differs from siblings like route_task, approve_preflight, and run_prepared_task. It's more than a tautology but remains vague on the core action.

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 the many sibling tools (run_prepared_task, approve_preflight, route_task, confirm_and_run). The second sentence about not showing Working until working_may_begin is true reads as a behavioral directive rather than usage guidance, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the run_prepared_task dependency but says nothing about whether preparing this response mutates state, what side effects occur, or what 'auxiliary' entails. For an un-annotated tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 wasted words. The purpose and the dependency lead. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification — but as a pure conciseness assessment, it scores well.

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 output schema covers return format, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a one-line description, the definition is incomplete. An agent lacks enough information about parameter semantics and the tool's role relative to prepare_task to invoke it with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It explains none of them: what 'quality' controls, what values 'reasoning_effort' accepts, and how 'prompt' is used are all unexplained. This is a critical gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 (prepare) and resource (low-latency auxiliary response), which goes beyond a tautology. It also discloses the run_prepared_task dependency. However, the term 'auxiliary' is vague, and the description doesn't clearly distinguish quick_response from the sibling prepare_task — both appear to prepare something, and the differentiator is left implicit.

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 'low-latency auxiliary' implies a use case, and the dependency note ('execution requires run_prepared_task') hints at a workflow. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over prepare_task or other siblings, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. The routing is implied rather than stated.

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 verb 'Read' conveys a non-destructive lookup, which is the primary behavioral signal, and no annotations are present to offload this burden. Still, the description does not disclose what happens for a missing slug, whether lookup is local or remote, or any authentication/error behavior.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the retrieved content items without filler. Every part adds informational value.

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 output schema likely explains the return structure, so the description does not need to re-explain results. However, the description omits usage routing and slug semantics, so an agent might still be uncertain about how to identify the target tool or when this is preferable to list/search tools.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'slug' parameter, its format, or how to obtain a valid value. The name 'slug' implies a unique identifier for the tool, but the agent receives no guidance beyond that inference.

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 leads with the verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a reusable tool', then enumerates the exact contents retrieved: manifest, README, path, origin, evidence, and usage instructions. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_library_tools, search_tool_library, and run_library_tool.

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 known tool's manifest, README, or usage details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with discovery-oriented siblings such as list_library_tools or search_tool_library, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites like knowing the slug in advance.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Regenerate' which implies overwriting the existing CATALOG.md, but it does not explicitly state that this is a destructive operation, nor does it mention permission requirements or any other side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 is front-loaded with the action and purpose. It is concise with zero waste, conveying exactly what the tool does without extraneous detail.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is relatively brief. It states the purpose but lacks usage context (when to call) and behavioral details (side effects). Given the simplicity of the tool, it is borderline adequate but could be more complete with guidance on when regeneration is appropriate.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 'Regenerate' and the resource 'CATALOG.md', and specifies the purpose 'for cross-conversation tool discovery'. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools. No sibling appears to have the same function, so this is acceptable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after adding new tools or when the catalog becomes stale. It does not mention any prerequisites or conditions that should trigger invocation.

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 does disclose a key behavioral guarantee ('without exposing API keys'), but it remains silent on side effects (e.g., whether it is destructive, read-only, or affects existing data), which is a significant gap for a refresh 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and a critical safety property. There is no waste 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?

While the output schema covers return values, the description lacks important operational context such as side effects, whether repeated calls are safe, and the role of the 'force' parameter. For a simple one-parameter tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 zero description coverage for the 'force' parameter, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving its meaning and impact completely unspecified.

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 'Refresh' with clear resources 'live model catalogs and provider health' and adds a distinguishing safety qualifier 'without exposing API keys'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like rebuild_tool_catalog and refresh_provider_quotas, making its 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The name 'refresh' implies updating or replacing data, but the description only says 'fetch', which is ambiguous about side effects. It does not state whether it mutates state, requires permissions, or what the output contains beyond the schema. This is a significant gap for a tool with a potentially state-changing name.

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 states the action first and includes only necessary qualifiers ('official', 'remote', 'configured management endpoints'), making it efficient and appropriately sized.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the basic call. However, the term 'configured management endpoints' is undefined, and the refresh behavior (whether it updates local state) is not clarified. For a simple tool, this is mostly complete but leaves some ambiguity about side effects and prerequisites.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter information. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 action ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('remote balance/quota data for providers with configured management endpoints'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like refresh_model_catalog or rebuild_tool_catalog, though the resource scope is distinct.

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, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. An agent cannot determine when to prefer this over other refresh tools or what conditions warrant its 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?

With no annotations, the description itself reveals the critical behavioral trait: this tool only catalogs a script as a draft and does not execute it until a separate review/enable step. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, or success conditions.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the blocking constraint is stated immediately after. 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?

The description captures the tool's high-level purpose and main behavioral constraint, but is incomplete for an agent needing to fill 7 parameters correctly, especially with zero schema descriptions. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but parameter semantics and workflow context remain 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description neither explains parameters nor hints at their meanings beyond the word 'script'. With 7 parameters including 'source', 'task', 'triggers', and 'filename', an agent gets no field-level guidance from either the schema or the description.

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 ('Catalog') and resource ('a script as a draft tool'), and explicitly differentiates this from executable tools by stating it cannot execute until reviewed and enabled. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_library_tool and approve_library_tool.

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 the purpose and a key constraint ('cannot execute until separately reviewed and enabled'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_library_tool or approve_library_tool. Usage context is implied rather than directly compared to alternatives.

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 behavioral burden. It explicitly uses the non-mutating verb 'Return' and lists read-only status information, signaling that this is a safe query. It omits details about freshness or caching, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 communicates the verb, resource, and all major output areas efficiently, and every phrase 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 no-parameter status read with an output schema available, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It identifies the resource and the domains of the returned data, while the output schema can handle detailed return structure.

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's properties are empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 clear read verb ('Return') tied to a specific resource ('router') and enumerates the exact data categories returned: local usage, quota headers, provider health, and consent mode. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling status tools like pipeline_status or library_status.

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 such as pipeline_status or library_status, and it lists no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the listed return data.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock' signals a state-changing side effect, but it doesn't say whether the lock is reversible, how it affects the provider/model or pipeline, or what preconditions/auth are required.

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 action-first sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the capitalized 'Working' is unexplained jargon, and the sentence omits useful context, making it concise at the expense of substance.

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 routing tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, one vague sentence is materially incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, side-effect details, and any connection to the surrounding workflow tools; the output schema may document return values but cannot compensate for the missing entry-point guidance.

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 0%, and the description names none of the 10 parameters. It doesn't map 'selected provider/model' to task, prompt, preferred_providers, excluded_providers, or any other parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the input 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?

States a concrete action ('Prepare and lock') on a specific resource ('selected provider/model') with a temporal anchor ('before Working may begin'). It gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings like prepare_task or confirm_and_run.

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 only usage signal is the phrase 'before Working may begin,' which implies a point in the workflow but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative tools are named, so an agent cannot confidently choose route_task over prepare_task, approve_preflight, or run_prepared_task.

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 reveals only that script tools are left executable (not run), but does not state side effects, whether state is modified, whether approval is required, or what 'active' means. The output schema exists but the description does not mention the outcome.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 six parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and several related sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what an active prompt recipe is, how it relates to running a library tool, what the parameters control, or what happens to the recipe after preparation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention slug, input_text, quality, allow_paid, allow_user_pays, or reasoning_effort at all, leaving the agent to guess their meanings and formats.

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 says 'Prepare an active prompt recipe,' which names a verb and a resource, but the resource is jargon and the tool name ('run_library_tool') conflicts with the stated 'prepare' action. It also hints that script tools are not executed, but does not clearly distinguish this from siblings like prepare_task or run_prepared_task.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The phrase 'approved script tools remain separately executable' merely states what the tool does not do, not when to choose it over list_library_tools, prepare_task, or run_prepared_task.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool does not route or switch models, which is a behavioral trait, but it omits other critical behaviors such as whether it blocks, whether it has side effects on the plan state, whether it requires prior approval (implied by 'approved plan' but not explicit), or whether it is idempotent. The lack of any annotation coverage makes this a significant gap.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no filler or redundant information. The key action and the critical exclusion are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so while it is well-structured, it is not optimally complete.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and a large set of siblings, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'provider work' entails, what the expected output is (even though an output schema exists, the description does not reference it), or how this tool fits into the broader pipeline workflow. The single differentiator (no routing/switching) is insufficient to guide an agent in correctly invoking this tool, especially given the ambiguity of the parameters like response_detail and next_tier_suggestion.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The tool has three parameters (plan_token required, response_detail and next_tier_suggestion optional), and the description does not mention any of them. With zero coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive text, but it does not, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of the parameters beyond their names.

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 action: 'Begin provider work for one approved plan.' This is a clear verb+resource combination that conveys the tool's core function. The addition of 'Never routes or switches models' provides a differentiating constraint that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like route_task and switch-related tools. However, the term 'provider work' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about what the work entails.

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 only offers a negative constraint ('Never routes or switches models') but does not provide positive guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_task, approve_preflight, or confirm_and_run. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites, such as requiring an approved plan, nor any indication of when not to use it beyond the routing/switch exclusion. This leaves the agent to infer the usage context.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only search operation, but does not state what the result set contains, pagination behavior, default ordering, or behavior when nothing matches. Adequate at a basic level, but thin.

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 zero waste. The verb, resource, and search dimensions are presented in order of importance, and no filler or redundancy exists.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the burden of documenting return values. However, for a moderate-complexity search tool with siblings and 0% parameter schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics and absence of usage guidance leave the definition incomplete. The description does just enough to signal intent, nothing more.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it fails to do so. It maps 'task' and loosely 'words' to the query dimension, yet never defines how 'query' relates to 'task', never explains 'limit' (result count is only a guess), and mentions 'tags' and 'trigger descriptions' which have no corresponding parameter in the schema. The agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('reusable cross-project tools'), and the search dimensions ('task, words, tags, and trigger descriptions'). The word 'Search' plus the filtering criteria differentiate it from siblings such as list_library_tools (which enumerates) and read_library_tool (which fetches one specific tool).

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 use this over sibling tools. With list_library_tools, suggest_library_tools, and read_library_tool in the same library family, there is no statement of exclusions, prerequisites, or the condition that would route an agent to a different tool. Agents are left to infer the distinction.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that it sets a configuration mode, but does not mention persistence, permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what each mode actually implies beyond its name. The three mode names (always_ask, paid_only, automatic) are self-descriptive but not explained, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the valid modes. There is no redundancy or filler, and every word contributes to the tool's invocation.

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 one-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is sufficient to construct a valid call: it names the parameter's allowed values. It lacks deeper context about when to choose each mode, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description handles the core invocation need.

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 only a mode property with type string and no enum or description (0% coverage). The description adds the valid values 'always_ask, paid_only, or automatic', which is essential for correct parameter selection. It does not define what each mode does, but it does give the precise allowed inputs.

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 ('Set') and a specific resource ('model-switch prompting') and enumerates the three allowed modes, making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like set_tier_guidance, but the phrasing is distinctive enough to differentiate it.

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, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisite conditions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without any usage direction.

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 full burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral impact. It only says 'enable' and lists mode options, but does not explain whether the setting is persistent, scoped to a request, reversible, or what happens when enabled is false.

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 compact sentence with the core action and mode options front-loaded. There is no wasted text, though the trailing 'local or codex_request' phrase is slightly elliptical.

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 tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, more context is needed. The description leaves open what the guidance looks like, when each mode is appropriate, and what toggling the flag actually does, despite the presence of an output schema.

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 and no enums, so the description's 'local or codex_request' hint is valuable for the mode parameter. However, it does not explain the enabled boolean beyond what the schema's default already implies, leaving semantic gaps.

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, 'Enable,' with a distinct object, 'compact post-response tier guidance,' and clarifies the two mode options ('local or codex_request'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like model_tiers or set_switch_confirmation, but the resource is specific enough to identify what the tool acts on.

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, nor any exclusions or conditions. 'Post-response tier guidance' implies a timing context, but an agent cannot tell why to choose this over set_switch_confirmation or model_tiers.

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 a key behavioral trait: despite the 'complete' in the name, this tool does not start provider work. It also introduces the concept of a 'locked task' but does not explain what locking entails, side effects, or state changes. Some useful transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a key clarifying caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise while delivering the most important functional distinction.

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 having an output schema, the description is far too sparse for a tool with 14 parameters and zero schema descriptions. It does not define what a 'locked task' is, how parameters interact, or what workflow stage this fits into. The single behavioral note is helpful but leaves an agent without enough context to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. With 14 parameters, many of which could have ambiguous semantics (e.g., 'quality', 'workflow_tags', 'response_detail'), the description does nothing to compensate. An agent would have to infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults.

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+resource: 'Prepare a locked task.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('never begins provider work'), which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like run_prepared_task. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling prepare_task, leaving some ambiguity about when smart_complete is the right choice.

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 'never begins provider work' provides an implicit when-not-to-use signal, indicating this tool is for preparation rather than execution. But it does not name alternatives or specify conditions for choosing this tool over prepare_task or run_prepared_task. Usage context is implied rather than 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that only active tools are considered and that relevance/pragmatism is part of the selection behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how ranking works, or what role context plays in the selection process.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb, resource, and key selection criteria. Every word contributes to the core 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?

With zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves important input semantics unresolved, such as the distinction between 'context' and 'task' and the meaning of 'limit'. It also provides no differentiation from sibling search/list tools. The existence of an output schema helps with return understanding, but the input side is still 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema offers no parameter explanations. The description only loosely maps 'current work' to the required 'context' parameter, while 'task' and 'limit' are left entirely unexplained. An agent has to guess that 'limit' caps the number of suggestions and what 'task' adds beyond 'context'.

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, 'Find', and identifies a concrete resource: active library tools. It adds selection criteria ('pragmatic and relevant to the current work') that distinguish it from simple listing or searching. 'Pragmatic' is somewhat subjective, but the core purpose is still 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?

The phrase 'relevant to the current work' implies this is a context-driven recommendation tool, and 'active' implies inactive tools should be excluded. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_library_tools or search_tool_library, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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 full burden. It does convey that this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Return ... syntax') and implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly disclose safety, mutability, caching, or availability behavior. 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 ten-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 informational lookup with an output schema, the description provides enough domain context. It does not attempt to document return values, which the output schema already covers. Complete for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain arguments. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter information is missing.

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 'Return' and identifies a concrete resource: 'canonical task, quality, and prompt-variable syntax.' It clearly states what the tool provides, but it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. The wording implies it should be used when canonical syntax definitions are needed, but it does not say when it should not be used or mention any alternative tool. Usage context is only implied.

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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: this tool only prepares a route and does not execute it, requiring run_prepared_task afterward. However, it does not explain what side effects preparation has, whether state is persisted, what a 'verification route' entails, or what the agent should expect after calling it.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears first, and the crucial workflow dependency is stated in the second clause. There is no wasted wording, though the terseness contributes to missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and a nontrivial preparation/execution workflow, the description is too thin: it explains only the broad preparation step and the follow-up tool. It omits parameter semantics, output expectations, and what happens to the prepared route, leaving the agent to infer critical details.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters: material, quality, and reasoning_effort. The word 'route' hints at material but does not explain required inputs, how quality behaves, or how reasoning_effort should be set. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 identifies a specific action ('Prepare') and resource ('verification route'), and it clearly distinguishes this tool from execution by noting that run_prepared_task is required. However, it does not fully differentiate the tool from other preparation-style siblings like prepare_task or route_task, so it stops 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 gives a clear workflow cue: this tool prepares a verification route, and execution must happen through run_prepared_task. This helps an agent know not to attempt execution here and to route execution to a specific sibling. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use criteria for similar preparation tools, but the context is reasonably clear.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'prepare' which implies a mutation or creation action, but does not state whether it writes state, requires permissions, is reversible, or has side effects. The agent is left without a clear picture of the tool's operational behavior.

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 with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately terse, though the phrase 'evidence-bound' is somewhat cryptic. Structurally it is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a SITREP route is, how the parameters affect the output, what constitutes 'evidence-bound,' or what the tool returns. For a tool with three parameters and a required one, this is far from adequate.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (project_material, quality, reasoning_effort) or their semantics. The agent must rely solely on the raw schema types and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description adds no value 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 states a specific action (prepare) on a specific resource (an evidence-bound SITREP route) and gives a temporal context (before Working begins). It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prepare_task or plan_work. The term 'SITREP route' may be domain-specific but is unambiguous within the tool family.

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 such as prepare_task or plan_work. The only hint is 'before Working begins,' which provides a temporal condition but no exclusion criteria or direct comparison. No alternatives are named, so an agent cannot easily route between this and similar preparation tools.

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