mindpulse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. The description discloses pricing per endpoint (e.g., $0.10, $0.08), which is valuable behavioral context. It also notes 'Coverage: Global' and that 'crisis' is always free. This goes beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not mention rate limits, response formats, or error handling, which would be beneficial but not severely lacking.

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 relatively long (over 20 lines) but well-structured with a brief intro, coverage note, and bullet-pointed endpoints. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Coverage: Global' is a single line). It could be more concise by merging endpoint descriptions into the action enum's description, but the structure aids readability.

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 complexity (20 parameters, 10 actions) and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains each endpoint's purpose and pricing, which helps an agent decide which action to call. However, it does not describe return values or expected response structures, which would be helpful for a tool with many output possibilities. The schema covers input parameters well, so the description need not repeat them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have descriptions. The list of endpoints in the description adds context to the 'action' parameter by explaining what each action does. For parameters like 'concern', 'condition', 'situation', the schema descriptions are adequate. The description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'MindPulse: Global mental health intelligence API' and lists specific endpoints (match, assessment, burnout, etc.) with their purposes. This provides a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools that are likely domain-specific pulses (e.g., chronicapulse, legalpulse). The tool's focus on mental health is explicit and well-delineated.

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 lists endpoints and costs, which implicitly helps decide which action to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use MindPulse versus sibling tools (e.g., when to use MindPulse vs. clinicalintelpulse). There is no guidance on prerequisites or contraindications. The 'crisis' endpoint is marked as FREE, which is good context, but overall usage context is only moderately clear.

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