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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' does imply a non-destructive read operation, which is the key behavioral fact for this tool, but the description says nothing about an omitted-index call returning the whole module, nor about return shape or 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the module and gives a concrete example, with no filler. Every clause 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 one-optional-parameter read tool there is little to specify, and the schema covers the parameter. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not indicate what a single-item read versus a whole-module read returns, leaving a modest 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 coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter, so the schema already explains index (0–2) and 'omit for the whole module.' The description adds nothing about the parameter and even frames the tool as reading 'an item,' slightly at odds with the whole-module mode. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('an item from M3 — Case Studies') and even gives concrete content examples (The Refusal Problem). An agent can distinguish it from get_principle or get_code_of_conduct by the resource named, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling retrieval tools. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for case-study content purely from the resource name.

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 behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating retrieval, but the description says nothing about return shape, error behavior for out-of-range indexes, or how the module relates to its sibling modules. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence with the subject and scope front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical earns its place by hinting at the module's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read with a fully documented schema and no output schema requirement, the description supplies the key missing context (which module and why it matters). Only marginal detail about return contents is absent.

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% — the 'index' parameter already documents the 0–6 range and the omit-for-whole-module behavior. The description only refers to 'an item' generically and adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb ('Read') and a specific, named resource ('an item from M4 — Code of Conduct'), plus a scope hint (single item vs. module). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_principle or get_case_study, which are likely other curriculum modules, but the named module makes it identifiable.

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 parenthetical '(lines an agent can audit itself against)' implies a use case — self-auditing against the code — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the framing.

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 usefully discloses that the edition is deterministic and composed of two named parts, which goes beyond the schema. It stops short of return format, pagination, or ordering, so it is only partially transparent for an unannotated read 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'deterministic ethics edition' is slightly jargon-heavy but does not bloat the description.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain behavior and returns, and it does describe the two-part payload. It is still incomplete on how this feed differs from the four sibling feed tools and on ordering/format, which an agent needs to call it correctly among alternatives.

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 is a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format and UTC default. The description's '(or a given date's)' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb+resource (get today's daily feed) and clarifies the payload structure: one primary item plus a companion from a neighbouring module. However, it never distinguishes this from the many feed siblings (get_feed_since, get_feed_digest, get_feed_rotation), so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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 parenthetical '(or a given date's)' hints at the optional date input but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for picking this over get_feed_since or get_feed_digest, and no exclusions. A family of five feed tools with zero routing guidance is a real gap.

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 does disclose that the result is a weekly Sunday digest summarizing four modules (implying a read-only aggregate), but it omits default behavior when date is omitted, return structure, and any access constraints.

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 tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and no padding. The only weakness is that 'all four modules' is left unexplained, which costs clarity more than length.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description is serviceable but leaves key gaps: what the 'four modules' are, what happens when date is absent, and how it differs from sibling feed tools. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single date parameter is already documented as 'any date in the week, optional'. The description's 'week containing a date' merely restates that, adding no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve the Sunday digest for the week containing a date) and clarifies it summarizes 'all four modules', which separates it from the daily-feed siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_daily_feed or get_feed_since, but the weekly-digest scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_daily_feed or get_feed_since, even though these are obvious overlaps. The only usage hint is that the date is optional, which lives in the schema rather than the description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the rules are deterministic, implying stable answers, but does not state read-only nature, auth requirements, or output shape. For a zero-param descriptive tool this is adequate but sparse.

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 a useful parenthetical. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to know what is returned (rotation rules per weekday). It stops short of describing output format or how the rules are organized, but the core is 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space explaining parameter semantics, and the parenthetical clarifies the content returned.

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 (Describe) and a well-defined resource (deterministic rotation rules) with a clarifying parenthetical. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the feed-content siblings like get_daily_feed or get_feed_digest.

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 prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the tool for learning rotation logic rather than fetching feed content.

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, and it does contribute one valuable trait: 'Each edition is a pure function of its date,' implying deterministic, side-effect-free, cacheable reads. It stops there, disclosing nothing about auth needs, error behavior for invalid/out-of-range dates, or what an edition actually contains.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior, with no filler. The second sentence ('pure function of its date') is terse and slightly cryptic but does carry real meaning, so little is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves notable gaps: it never says what an 'edition' contains, how many items come back, or how invalid dates or the 60-day cap are handled. The idempotency hint is useful but the definition is only minimally adequate 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 coverage is 50% ('since' documented, 'days' undocumented). The description loosely maps both parameters via 'starting from a date' (since) and 'for N days' (days), compensating somewhat for the gap. However it adds no detail on date format (the schema supplies 'YYYY-MM-DD') or on the 1–60 bound enforced by 'days'.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return a run of daily editions') plus scope ('starting from a date, for N days'), which clearly signals a range/batch operation. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so an agent must infer that this differs from get_daily_feed (single day) or list_feed_editions purely from the range phrasing.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'run ... starting from a date, for N days' framing, which suggests a multi-day window use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the rich sibling set (get_daily_feed, get_feed_digest, get_feed_rotation), leaving the agent to guess which feed tool fits a given request.

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 behavioral burden. 'Read an item' implies a safe retrieval, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the module is static or user-specific, or how items are returned; it only hints that omitting index yields the whole module, which the schema already states.

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 tight sentence with the resource and its semantic role front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives purpose and content framing but leaves the return shape, the meaning of 'M1', and the distinction from sibling retrieval tools unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional index parameter (0–4, omit for whole module) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Read an item' loosely confirms item-level retrieval, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb (read) and resource (M1 — Humanity's Goals), and the parenthetical clarifies the content domain (the 'why' behind ethical behaviour). It is distinguishable from curriculum siblings like get_principle or get_code_of_conduct by module name, though 'M1' is opaque jargon an agent may not resolve without outside context.

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 and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling retrieval tools (get_principle, get_case_study, get_code_of_conduct). An agent must infer entirely from the module label whether this is the right tool for a given question.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone, but the word "Read" does establish this as a non-mutating, safe retrieval operation. It adds no information about what happens when index is out of range, whether the whole module is large, or how the result is shaped.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. The only minor cost is reliance on the internal label "M2" and a parenthetical that does the semantic heavy lifting.

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 low-complexity read tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. It is complete enough, though it leaves module identity and routing entirely to the reader's inference.

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%, and the single parameter's index range, 0–5 bound, and 'omit for the whole module' behavior are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb ("Read") and a specific resource (an item from M2 — Core Principles), and the parenthetical clarifies what kind of content lives there ("hard constraints such as Do No Harm"). The module name implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like get_code_of_conduct and get_humanity_goals, though it never explicitly contrasts 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other get_* content tools in the sibling set, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the module name alone whether this or get_code_of_conduct is the right call.

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 the returned payload shape and the cache-detection intent, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether it is a read-only operation. Partial coverage only.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list and purpose parenthetical adding value. No wasted wording.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully names the returned fields, which covers the return-value gap. However, for a listing tool with an undocumented time-window parameter and no usage routing among nine siblings, it is only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single 'days' parameter, its default of 7, or its 1-60 range. 'Recent editions' gestures at a time window but does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (recent editions) and enumerates the returned fields (primary module, item id, content hash). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_daily_feed or get_feed_since, but the 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many get_feed_* siblings, and no prerequisites. The only hint is the parenthetical '(for cache detection)', which implies a use case but doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over get_feed_since or get_daily_feed.

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 behavioral burden. It names the matched fields but says nothing about result limits, ranking/relevance ordering, case sensitivity, empty-result behavior, or required permissions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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 zero filler. The scope (all four modules) and match fields are packed in tightly with nothing wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits what the four modules are, how results are ordered or shaped, and any limits. For a search entry point that an agent must choose over several siblings, this is 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only that matching spans title, summary, and detail, which clarifies search scope but not query syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('across all four modules') plus the fields matched (title, summary, detail). This distinguishes it from direct-retrieval siblings like get_principle and get_case_study. However, 'all four modules' is never enumerated, so the agent must infer the corpus from sibling names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The search-vs-get distinction against siblings is only weakly implied by the verb choice, leaving the agent to infer that this is the entry point for keyword lookup.

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