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. It only states the basic function ('Return batteries due') and implies a read operation via 'Return', but does not disclose any behavioral details such as sorting, pagination, inclusion/exclusion of overdue batteries, or any side effects. It adds little beyond the tool 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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately communicates the core functionality.

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 (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., whether overdue batteries are included) or clarify the meaning of 'due', but given the low complexity, it is not severely incomplete.

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 a single optional parameter 'days' with a default of 7, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'given number of days', which clarifies the parameter's meaning but does not explain the default behavior or edge cases (e.g., days=0). It provides minimal added value over 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 clearly states the action ('Return batteries due') and the temporal scope ('within the next given number of days'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'batteries_overdue_tool' (past due) and 'batteries_list_tool' (all batteries). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 its siblings like 'batteries_overdue_tool' or 'batteries_list_tool'. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected or what conditions exclude it.

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 transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, and 'with next estimated charge times' gives some insight into the output behavior. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, scope (all batteries vs. filtered), or any other operational caveats, which would be valuable given the absence of annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target resource. It contains no wasted words or redundant information, making it an exemplar of concise documentation.

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

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

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it communicates the primary purpose and output focus. Slight ambiguity remains over whether it lists all batteries or only a subset, and 'next estimated charge times' is not elaborated, but the overall definition is adequate for a simple list operation.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there is nothing to document; this matches expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 ('List') and resource ('batteries'), and adds 'with next estimated charge times' to convey the output focus. This distinguishes it from siblings like batteries_due_tool and batteries_overdue_tool, which imply filtered views, and battery_details_tool, which is singular. An agent can readily identify the tool's purpose.

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 batteries_due_tool or batteries_overdue_tool. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or alternative routing is mentioned.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned, not how the results are ordered, whether the list is paginated, or what fields are included. The meaning of 'overdue' is left undefined. This minimal detail is insufficient for a tool that relies solely on its description.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loads the core action and target.

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 a simple list-returning purpose, the description is nearly complete. Since an output schema is present, return format details are not required. The only minor omission is clarifying the threshold for 'overdue,' but the overall context is adequate for a straightforward query 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, but this is not a gap. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Return') and the specific resource ('batteries that are already overdue for charging'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'batteries_due_tool' by emphasizing the 'already overdue' condition, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving overdue batteries but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the similar 'batteries_due_tool' or other battery list tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool 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 burden of behavior disclosure. 'Track a battery charge cycle' does not state whether the tool creates a new history entry, updates battery state, or has side effects such as changing due dates. The behavioral impact remains unspecified beyond the vague action word 'track.'

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 short and front-loaded with no filler, which is good for this dimension, but it is too underspecified to be considered well-structured for effective use. One terse sentence does eight words' worth of work, yet it sacrifices helpfulness.

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 annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and two parameters, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine side effects, required prerequisite battery state, or parameter semantics from the provided text. The existing output schema does not compensate for these input and behavior gaps.

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 explanation of what values to pass for 'battery' or 'tracked_time.' The agent is left to guess whether 'battery' is an ID, name, or ID, and what format or semantics 'tracked_time' expects. The description fails to compensate for the schema's missing 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 action verb and resource: 'Track a battery charge cycle.' It is clear enough to understand that this tool records or marks a charge event for a battery, and it is distinguishable from obvious siblings like battery_history_tool or battery_undo_cycle_tool, though it does not explicitly name 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 alternatives such as battery_history_tool, battery_update_tool, or batteries_due_tool. The sentence implies only the general scenario of tracking a charge cycle, but provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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. 'Create a battery object' only indicates the basic action. It does not mention persistence, created identifiers, duplicate-name behavior, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a mutation 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 description is extremely concise with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it barely adds value over the tool title, making this under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description still leaves parameter semantics, when to create, and behavioral expectations unresolved.

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 explanation for any of the four parameters. The description does not clarify that `name` is required or clarify the meaning or expected format of `used_in`, `description`, or `charge_interval_days`, leaving the agent without compensating information.

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 ('Create') and a specific resource ('a battery object'), so the agent knows the core behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling battery tools such as battery_update_tool or battery_charge_tool, but the verb makes the purpose reasonably 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of when creation is appropriate. It neither names sibling tools nor explains how to choose between creating and updating a battery.

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 supplied, the description carries the full burden, and 'Return' reasonably signals a side-effect-free lookup. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing or unknown batteries, match semantics, preconditions, or error cases, leaving transparency only minimally adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence states the action, target, and accepted identifier forms with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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

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

For a one-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient for a basic call. It is weakened by offering no pointer to related battery tools and no mention of not-found behavior, leaving a moderate gap in selection 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 only documents a required string property named 'battery' with 0% description coverage. The description adds real added meaning by clarifying that this single parameter may be either a name or an ID, which is important 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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('battery'), and the accepted identifier forms ('name or ID'), so an agent knows what operation this is. It is more specific than a bare 'Battery Details Tool' label, though it does not fully distinguish itself from battery_history_tool or batteries_list_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 provided for when to use this tool over nearby siblings such as battery_history_tool, batteries_list_tool, or battery_charge_tool. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the title and sibling names, with no exclusions given.

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, but it only says the tool 'returns' data. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what happens for an unknown battery, or how the history is ordered or presented.

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 and a clear noun phrase, 'charge-cycle history.' Its brevity is efficient, though it contributes to the lack of parameter and usage detail elsewhere.

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 an output schema, the description is minimally usable. However, it still does not explain how to identify the battery or when to choose this tool over related battery tools, so an agent must rely on external 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's only property has no description, and the tool description merely repeats that a battery is needed. It does not specify whether the parameter should be an ID, name, serial, or some other identifier, so it does not compensate for the 0% 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('charge-cycle history') and picks out a distinct data view from siblings like battery_details_tool or battery_charge_tool. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, 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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over battery_details_tool, battery_charge_tool, or other battery-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned; only the word 'history' implies a use case.

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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. 'Undo' implies a mutation, but it does not explain the effects (e.g., whether the cycle is deleted, whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated stock or state), nor does it mention idempotency or failure conditions. The description is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 achieves maximum conciseness and structural efficiency for the information it conveys.

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 exists and there is only one parameter, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It fails to explain how to obtain the cycle_id, what the undo action entails, whether it can be undone, or any side effects. An agent would need additional context to use it correctly and safely.

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 undocumented parameter. However, it does not mention cycle_id at all, nor does it explain what the value represents, where to find it, or its format. The parameter name is suggestive but the description adds no meaning 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 ('Undo') and resource ('a tracked battery charge cycle'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also distinguishable from siblings like battery_charge_tool and battery_history_tool by the combination of name and description, even without an explicit alternative reference.

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 about when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a cycle_id), or when not to use it. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and other battery-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 disclosing side effects, yet it only repeats the word 'update'. It does not explain whether the operation is a partial update, whether null values clear fields, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing data; this is effectively no transparency.

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 single sentence is short but it earns its place only by restating the title; it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. There is no front-loaded core information beyond what the name already conveys.

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 a straightforward CRUD operation and an output schema, the definition lacks enough context to be safely invoked: no update semantics, no field explanations, and no use-case guidance. An agent would know the target resource but not what a successful update entails or how optional parameters behave.

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 five parameters. The schema provides names like name, used_in, description, and charge_interval_days, but neither the schema nor the description explains their meaning, format, or optionality semantics, so the description adds no 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 'Update a battery object' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, adding only the generic noun 'object'. It identifies the resource, but says nothing about which attributes are updatable, so it is closer to a tautology than a purpose statement and does not clearly differentiate from sibling battery mutations like battery_charge_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as battery_create_tool, battery_charge_tool, or battery_details_tool. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the schema and sibling names.

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 implies a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications, requires no authentication (if applicable), or what the output format exactly entails beyond being an iCal export. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 filler words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds value. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the tool is read-only, but that is more of a behavioral transparency issue than a completeness issue. Overall, the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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 description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The rules set a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('raw Grocy iCal export'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like calendar_summary_tool (summary) and calendar_sharing_link_tool (link) by emphasizing 'raw' and 'export', which tells an agent this provides the actual iCal data.

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 does not mention that this should be used when raw iCal data is needed, nor does it explain the difference between this and calendar_summary_tool or calendar_sharing_link_tool. An agent must infer the use case 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the output and gives no information about side effects, authentication, or that this is a read-only operation. The minimal description does not add behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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, clear sentence that states the purpose immediately without any fluff. It is optimally sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple output.

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 is complete for the tool's simple nature (no parameters, output schema exists), but it lacks context about when to use this tool over siblings like calendar_ical_tool. It also does not mention any prerequisites or that the link is public (though that is in the description). Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter information because there is nothing to describe.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('public Grocy iCal sharing link'), making it specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calendar_ical_tool, which might also deal with iCal data, so it falls 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, and no reference to calendar_ical_tool or calendar_summary_tool, 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states read-only, but does not specify whether the summary includes detailed items or just aggregates, whether it respects date ranges, or what happens with null dates. The lack of depth for a cross-domain summary tool 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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key behavior (read-only planning summary) and scope. No fluff, but could benefit from a terse note on usage or parameters, though this is not required for conciseness.

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 aggregates multiple domains (tasks, chores, batteries, meal plan) and has no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the output structure despite having an output schema, but it also fails to clarify key behaviors like date handling, summary granularity, and how it relates to domain-specific list tools. An agent would struggle to know what to expect.

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

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, with start_date and end_date lacking any description of format or meaning. The description implies date-range filtering but does not specify date format, inclusive/exclusive bounds, or default behavior. This leaves the agent to guess, but since the parameters are optional and the schema is simple, it is minimally adequate.

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 purpose: returning a read-only planning summary across tasks, chores, batteries, and meal plan. However, it lacks specificity about what the summary contains (e.g., counts, dates, statuses) and does not differentiate from similar tools like meal_plan_summary_tool or tasks_list_tool, making it partially ambiguous.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tasks_list_tool, chores_list_tool, or meal_plan_summary_tool. It mentions 'planning summary' but does not clarify whether this aggregates data from those tools or how it differs, leaving the agent to infer its 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool creates a record. It does not mention validation, persistence, permissions, error behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the target catalog entity is not writable.

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 core action appearing immediately and no filler words. It loses a point because the unclear phrase 'writable first-class catalog entity' consumes valuable space without adding useful clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, but the tool is still under-specified. With no annotations, opaque parameters, and no behavioral or usage guidance, an agent does not have enough information to invoke this 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 by explaining the two required parameters. It does not clarify what entity values are valid, what format data should take, or how they relate to the 'record' being created, leaving the agent to guess.

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 concrete action ('Create a record') and identifies the resource as a catalog entity, which helps distinguish it from catalog_list_tool, catalog_details_tool, and catalog_update_tool. However, the phrase 'writable first-class catalog entity' is jargon and never explains what type of resource a catalog entity actually is.

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 instead of alternatives such as entity_create_tool or catalog_update_tool. The word 'writable' hints at a precondition, but no when/when-not conditions or exclusions are 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by saying 'Return details,' but it does not explain how entities are resolved, whether permissions are needed, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is minimal beyond the stated purpose.

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 and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical context about the catalog entity concept and parameter semantics, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be in the description, and there are only two required parameters. Even so, both parameters are undocumented and the phrase 'first-class catalog entity record' is not explained, leaving an agent unable to reliably construct a valid 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the 'entity' or 'obj_id' parameters. An agent cannot determine acceptable entity values, whether obj_id is a catalog-internal ID or a raw database ID, or how the two parameters relate.

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 ('Return') and resource ('details for a first-class catalog entity record'), so an agent can infer this is a lookup/read tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like catalog_list_tool, describe_entity_tool, or entity_list_tool, and 'first-class catalog entity' is left undefined.

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 such as catalog_list_tool or describe_entity_tool. The description gives no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it.

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 behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only 'List' action and gives the entity scope, but says nothing about whether the optional query filters results, pagination, or other side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the long entity list is necessary information rather than filler. Every sentence 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 2-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main resource and entity values but is incomplete around query behavior and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable, with clear gaps.

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

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

The description adds valid values for the 'entity' parameter by listing supported entity types, which is useful given 0% schema coverage. However, the 'query' parameter is not mentioned at all, so its filtering semantics remain 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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'first-class catalog and metadata entities', then enumerates supported entity types. This clearly identifies the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling list tools like entity_list_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 supported-entity list implies when to use the tool (e.g., for shopping_lists or quantity_units), but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Given the large sibling set, an agent would still have to infer where this differs from other list 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Writable' hints at a constraint, but the description does not explain what makes an entity writable, what effects an update has, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the record does not exist, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 description is a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, though the jargon 'writable first-class' is not earning its place because it is unexplained.

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 three required parameters, zero annotation support, and zero schema descriptions, yet the description provides no invocation context, no parameter meaning, no edge-case behavior, and no relationship to sibling tools. This is far from complete enough for an agent to select and 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 does not compensate. entity, obj_id, and data are all required but entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess that obj_id identifies a record and data carries the new values. For a three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this is severely inadequate.

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 ('update') and resource ('a record in a writable first-class catalog entity'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'writable first-class catalog entity' is unexplained domain jargon and does not distinguish this from generic entity_update_tool or catalog_create_tool. The core purpose is understandable but vague.

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 catalog_create_tool, entity_update_tool, or the many other update tools. No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided, though nothing actively misleads the agent.

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 only says 'Create' without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on failure. The existence of an output schema is not referenced in the description, and no additional context is given.

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 and contains zero fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without any unnecessary details.

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 create tool with one parameter and an output schema (which presumably covers return values), the description is minimal but not fully complete. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or edge cases, though the simplicity of the operation mitigates the gap. It's adequate but leaves room for more 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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'name' with an example. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the 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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new chore' within Grocy. It distinguishes itself from sibling chore tools like chore_execute_tool or chores_list_tool by the explicit action of creating, so an agent can easily tell when to use 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'Use this to add a new chore; for tracking completions use chore_execute_tool.' The description only states the action, leaving usage context to inference.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool records an execution and advances the next scheduled time, which makes the mutation effect clear. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core behavioral consequence is adequately 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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful behavioral context about execution recording and schedule advancement.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and an output schema, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and what side effect to expect, and the schema supplies the remaining invocation 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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters: 'chore' as name or ID and 'done_by' as an optional user ID. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it rests at the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb 'Mark' and resource 'chore', clearly stating the action: 'Mark a chore as done.' The second sentence adds the operational effect—recording an execution and advancing the schedule—which further distinguishes it from siblings like chore_undo_tool or chores_list_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 intended usage is implied: use this when a chore has been completedsomeone, since it 'records an execution and advances the next scheduled time.' However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like chore_undo_tool or task_complete_tool.

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 states the tool 'lists' chores, implying a read-only operation, and specifies the output includes IDs and next scheduled time. However, it does not mention whether it returns only incomplete chores or includes details dependencies, but the core behavioral transparency is adequate.

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, two sentences, front-loading the key output (IDs and next scheduled time) and then providing a usage hint. No inflated text.

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

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

Given zero parameters and an output schema (which likely documents the return fields), the description is complete for an agent to call and understand the result. It does not specify any filtering or sorting flags, but those are absent from the schema, so nothing is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'List all chores' with no parameters needed. Since there are no parameters, the description need not explain them; this is effectively a perfect match for 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 clear verb and resource: 'List all chores with their IDs and next scheduled execution time.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools such as chores_overdue_tool (which likely lists only overdue chores) and chore_execute_tool (which executes a chore). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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

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

The description includes a second sentence: 'Use this to see what chores exist and when they are due next,' which provides a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like chores_overdue_tool for overdue filtering, so some inference is required.

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 state that the tool returns only filtered chores, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or mention any potential side effects (though none are expected). It also omits details like sorting, pagination, or field completeness, which could be relevant for an agent. It provides basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a precise clarification. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

For a simple parameterless query tool, the description provides the essential information: what it returns and the exact filter condition. The presence of an output schema means return structure need not be explained in the description. It lacks only minor optional details like sorting order or whether all chore fields are included, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly avoids any irrelevant parameter details.

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 (List) on a specific resource (chores) with a clear filter (past scheduled execution time). It clearly distinguishes this from a general chores_list_tool by specifying the overdue criterion, and the second sentence reinforces the exact condition (next execution time in the past). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

The description implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when overdue chores are needed), but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like chores_list_tool or mention when not to use it. There is no direct guidance on alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that this is a destructive action ('Removes the last recorded execution') and describes the secondary effect ('reverts the schedule'). This is more transparent than typical mutation-tool descriptions, though it does not detail edge cases like undoing when no execution exists.

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 wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the concrete behavioral detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and its effect sufficiently. It lacks only explicit edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if there is no prior execution), but this is not critical for the common invocation path.

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 the single parameter is already well documented with an example and accepted forms ('Chore name ... or numeric chore ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Undo the most recent execution of a chore.' It then clarifies the effect ('Removes the last recorded execution and reverts the schedule'), which clearly distinguishes this from chore_execute_tool, chore_create_tool, task_undo_tool, and battery_undo_cycle_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 makes the intended context clear: it is for reverting the latest chore execution, not for general chore management. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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. The verb 'Describe' reasonably implies a read-only/introspection operation, and 'discovered fields' hints at metadata inspection. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor clarify what 'discovered' means in practice.

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 filler or redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded. It is slightly too terse to fully support tool selection, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Because the output schema exists, the return shape is covered, but the description still leaves key gaps: what constitutes a valid entity, what 'discovered fields' means, and how this relates to sibling tools like discover_fields_tool and entity_list_tool. With no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is not complete enough.

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 a bare 'entity: string' with 0% schema description coverage and no enums. The description adds the context that the entity is a 'Grocy entity,' but it does not explain acceptable entity identifiers, naming conventions, or examples. This does not adequately compensate for the schema 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 a clear verb and resource: it describes a Grocy entity and its discovered fields. It avoids a pure tautology by adding the 'discovered fields' concept. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as discover_fields_tool or entity_list_tool, so it falls 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention related tools like discover_fields_tool or entity_list_tool, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from the verb 'Describe' 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Search,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether results are limited, how the limit parameter behaves, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no structured annotation clues.

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 wasted words, and it front-loads the core action and object. However, it is so short that it omits necessary context, so while efficient, 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 three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a broad scope across multiple domains, the description is far from complete. It does not clarify what 'candidates' means, which values the entity parameter accepts beyond the named examples, how query matching works, or how limit affects results. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these input-side gaps.

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 undocumented parameters. It adds some value by listing likely values for the entity parameter (products, recipes, chores, locations, tasks, metadata domains), but it does not explain the query parameter semantics or the limit parameter. The vague 'supported metadata domains' further reduces its usefulness.

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 ('Search') and names concrete resources: products, recipes, chores, locations, tasks, or supported metadata domains. This distinguishes it from single-entity list tools like recipes_list_tool or chores_list_tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar cross-entity search tools or explain the 'candidates' concept.

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 an alternative. The description only implies it is a generic cross-domain search, but never says 'use this instead of X when...' or mentions any exclusions. An agent is left to infer the exact selection criteria from the tool name and sibling list.

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 states the tool returns sample fields but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires prior discovery steps, what happens for invalid or unknown entities, or how the returned fields are structured. The term 'discovered' hints at a dependency on a prior discovery process, but this is not explicitly 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Return') and the object ('discovered sample fields'). However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, which is a minor structural tradeoff rather than a verbosity issue.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain the purpose of 'discovered sample fields' in the broader Grocy workflow, how this tool relates to discover_candidates_tool and describe_entity_tool, or what an agent should do with the output. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing usage and dependency context remains 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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'entity' parameter. The description mentions 'a Grocy entity' but does not clarify what values are valid, whether it accepts an entity name or ID, or how it relates to the entity_list_tool's entity identifiers. The single parameter's semantics are only partially conveyed.

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 ('Return') and resource ('discovered sample fields for a Grocy entity'), which is clear enough to identify the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its close siblings discover_candidates_tool and describe_entity_tool, which likely serve related discovery/description purposes. The phrase 'discovered sample fields' is somewhat ambiguous without context on what 'discovered' means in this workflow.

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 like discover_candidates_tool or describe_entity_tool. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as whether the entity must first be discovered or described, nor does it explain the relationship between this tool and its siblings. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'low-level' which hints at a raw operation, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, validation behavior, permissions, or consequences of invalid data. For a mutation tool, 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is included without 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?

The description is adequate for a generic tool with a full schema and output schema. It tells the agent what it does and when to use it. However, it lacks any behavioral context such as error handling, data validation, or reversibility, which would be useful for a low-level operation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Create a new object of any Grocy entity type.' It identifies the resource (Grocy entities) and the verb (create). It also explicitly differentiates itself from domain-specific tools, making it distinct from siblings like recipe_create_tool and chore_create_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 explicitly instructs to prefer domain-specific create tools when available, naming examples. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this generic tool versus alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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 does state that deletion 'cannot be undone,' which is a critical warning. However, it does not disclose cascading effects, failure behavior when the object is missing, permissions, or whether deletion is hard or soft. The irreversibility warning is valuable but incomplete.

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: the first states the action and target, and the second warns about irreversibility. Every word earns its place, and the most important information 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?

For a simple delete-by-ID operation, the description covers the core action and irreversibility, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it does not mention whether deletion cascades to related records, whether the entity type must be a valid Grocy entity, or what happens if the object does not exist, which would matter for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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 baseline is 3 even though the main description adds no parameter detail. The schema itself adequately documents entity as an entity type name and obj_id as the object ID, including the pointer to entity_list_tool.

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 ('Delete'), names the resource ('a Grocy entity object'), and scopes the operation ('by its ID'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling entity operations like entity_create_tool, entity_update_tool, and entity_list_tool. The irreversibility warning also reinforces the action's nature.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task_delete_tool, file_delete_tool, or other specialized deletion tools. The schema's obj_id parameter does suggest using entity_list_tool to find IDs, which is a useful prerequisite, but there are no exclusions or alternative-selection 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 present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List all' and 'browsing' indicate a read-only, unfiltered operation, but the tool does not disclose potential response size, pagination/limits, or any additional behavior beyond the basic listing; the output schema covers return shape.

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 tightly worded sentences, with the action front-loaded and the generic scope immediately following. No redundant words or filler.

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 tool with a full input schema description and an output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. The main missing context is how to discover valid entity type names beyond the listed common values and when the specialized list tools would be safer or better.

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 already documents the single 'entity' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond labeling the domain as 'Grocy entity type'. The description's mention of 'any Grocy data table' adds context but not syntax or format details 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all objects of a Grocy entity type') and adds that it is a generic tool for 'any Grocy data table'. This distinguishes it from domain-specific list siblings in spirit, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those 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 phrase 'generic tool for browsing any Grocy data table' implies when to use it: when a caller needs an unfiltered list for an arbitrary entity. However, it gives no explicit guidance about preferring specialized list tools (e.g., recipes_list_tool, locations_list_tool) or about when not to use this tool.

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 zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely important trait beyond the verb: 'Only the fields provided in data are changed; other fields are left as-is,' which communicates partial-update/merge semantics rather than full overwrite. However, it does not cover error behavior (e.g., invalid entity name or field, nonexistent obj_id) or any permission/safety implications of a mutating 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first identifies the action and target, the second adds the critical partial-update behavioral detail. The key differentiating trait is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

This is a generic, moderately complex CRUD tool, and the combination of a tight description, 100% parameter coverage in the schema, and an output schema covers most of what an agent needs. The partial-update disclosure compensates for the absent annotations on a mutating tool. The remaining gap is minor: no description of failure semantics when the entity or obj_id is invalid.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents all three parameters well, including an example JSON payload for data and a pointer to entity_list_tool for obj_id. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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: 'Update an existing Grocy entity object by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from entity_create_tool and entity_delete_tool by operation type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many specialized sibling update tools (recipe_update_tool, catalog_update_tool, battery_update_tool, equipment_update_tool), leaving the generic-vs-specialized routing 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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized *_update_tool siblings or the entity_create/entity_delete tools. The only usage pointer ('use entity_list_tool to find IDs') lives in the schema's obj_id parameter, not the description, and it says nothing about when NOT to use this tool.

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 only says 'Create an equipment item' and does not mention required fields, defaults, side effects, or what happens on creation. The schema shows name is required and battery_id/description have defaults, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; a single sentence that adds no information beyond the tool name is not a well-structured 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?

For a create tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an equipment item is, what fields are expected, or how this tool relates to equipment_list_tool/equipment_update_tool. The output schema exists but the description still leaves key usage questions unanswered.

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 undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'name', 'battery_id', or 'description' mean in the equipment context, nor how they relate to other entities like batteries. The schema provides only types and defaults, leaving the agent to guess 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 a clear verb and resource ('Create an equipment item'), which is minimally adequate. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling create tools like equipment_update_tool or entity_create_tool, and the title merely restates the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as equipment_update_tool or catalog_create_tool. The context of equipment creation is implied by the name, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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 only says 'Return details' and gives no information about not-found behavior, case sensitivity, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens with ambiguous name matches.

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 conveys the core purpose and the key parameter semantic without wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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

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

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the input semantics and the existence of an output schema covers the return format. The main missing piece is error/not-found behavior, but given the low complexity this is a minor gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only says the 'equipment' parameter is a string. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that the parameter can be either a name or an ID, but it does not provide examples or disambiguate what takes precedence if both could match.

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 action ('Return details'), resource ('equipment item'), and lookup mechanism ('by name or ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from equipment_list_tool (which presumably lists items) and equipment_create_tool/equipment_update_tool (which mutate items).

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 tool is used when you need details for a specific equipment item, especially when you have a name or ID. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or mention alternatives like equipment_list_tool for browsing all items.

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 behavioral burden. 'List' makes the read-only nature clear, and 'where available' signals that battery visibility is conditional, but the description does not disclose ordering, scope, or how missing battery links will appear beyond that phrase.

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: the core operation 'List equipment' comes first, followed by the qualifier 'with linked battery visibility where available.' There is 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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient: it states the resource, the action, and the key visible feature. It loses one point only because 'where available' is vague and no sibling relationship or expected scope is mentioned.

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 zero parameters and no properties, so there is nothing for the description to explain. With no parameters, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('equipment'), while adding a distinguishing feature ('linked battery visibility where available') that separates it from a plain equipment list and from battery-specific tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with equipment_details_tool, but the intent is clear and unambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly implies use when the agent needs an overview of equipment with battery associations, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as batteries_list_tool or equipment_details_tool, so usage guidance 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not describe side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or response behavior. For an update operation, this is 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It fails to include essential information about parameters or usage, so the brevity is a drawback, not a virtue.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without additional information from other sources.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the four parameters. The description mentions none of them, so it adds zero meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent gets no help understanding what 'name', 'battery_id', or 'description' mean or how to use them.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an equipment item'), which identifies the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like equipment_create_tool or equipment_details_tool, nor does it mention what fields can be updated, so it is slightly above minimal but lacks 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description is entirely silent on usage context, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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 states the action (delete) but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires confirmation, what happens to associated references, or whether any permissions are needed. For a destructive operation, 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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no usage context, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists but does not help the agent understand how to invoke the tool correctly. The description does not explain what 'group' refers to, how to identify a file, or what the consequences of deletion are.

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 two parameters, group and file_name. The description only says 'Grocy-managed file' and does not explain what 'group' means, how file_name should be formatted, or how the two parameters relate. This leaves the agent to guess at valid values.

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 ('Delete a Grocy-managed file'), which is clear enough to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling file_download_tool or file_upload_tool beyond the verb, and the name already conveys the same meaning.

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, such as file_upload_tool or file_download_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, safety checks, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate.

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 disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is a download returning base64 content, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not mention failure behavior, permission requirements, or side effects, leaving some 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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It earns its place, though the brevity contributes to the lack of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values may not need explanation, but the input semantics are entirely undocumented. The tool has five parameters including image-resizing options that are not self-explanatory, and no indication of what 'group' values are valid or how the optional parameters behave. The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably choose and use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for any of the five parameters: group, file_name, force_picture, best_fit_width, or best_fit_height. Since the schema properties have no descriptions, the tool description was the only place to explain them, and it does 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 ('Download'), names the exact resource ('Grocy-managed file'), and specifies the return format ('base64 content'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like file_upload_tool and file_delete_tool without needing to inspect schemas.

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 for use is clear: when an agent needs the contents of a Grocy-managed file. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like file_upload_tool or file_delete_tool, so it misses explicit when-not/alternative guidance, but the verb and resource make the intended use obvious.

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 behavioral traits. It indicates mutation via 'upload' but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), required permissions, or error conditions. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates return-value clarity, but other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no redundancy or filler; 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks annotations and schema descriptions. The description fails to explain the meaning of 'group' and 'file_name,' leaving the agent without enough context to construct a valid request. For a three-parameter tool, 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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only hints at content_base64 ('from base64 content') but says nothing about 'group' or 'file_name,' leaving these critical parameters 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 clearly states the action (upload), the resource (Grocy-managed file), and the input format (base64 content). It distinguishes this tool from file_download_tool and file_delete_tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies usage only through the verb 'upload,' leaving the agent to infer 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. The description says 'Create' implies mutation/persistence, which is useful, but it does not disclose duplicate-name handling, idempotency, permissions, or any side effects beyond creation.

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 key action and resource, making it immediately readable.

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 parameter schema is complete and an output schema exists, so basic invocation is supported. However, with no annotations, the description lacks behavioral details such as duplicate handling or uniqueness constraints, which would make it more contextually 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 includes examples and defaults, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning 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 clearly states the verb 'Create a storage location' and names the resource type, 'a new storage location', distinguishing it immediately from list/read, update, delete, and generic entity tools. An agent can correctly recognize this as the location-creation operation.

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

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

The usage context is implied: use this when a new storage location must be created. It does not mention when not to use it, any prerequisites, or name alternatives like entity_create_tool or locations_list_tool.

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 conveys a read-only operation through 'List' and 'Shows', and it discloses the output contents (names, IDs, freezer flag). It does not cover edge cases like empty results, but for a simple list tool this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional output details earn their 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 parameterless list tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states what is listed and what fields are shown. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 applies because 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all storage locations in Grocy'), and it adds the key output fields (names, IDs, freezer status). This is enough to distinguish it from other sibling list tools and from location_create_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 makes the usage context obvious: call it whenever the full set of storage locations is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no sibling tool that competes for this exact resource, so the context is 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. It communicates the additive nature of the operation but does not disclose behavior on conflicts, whether the recipe must already exist, permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutation 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?

Two short sentences deliver the action and the core input constraint without unnecessary words. The essential information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a simple tool, the description plus full schema coverage is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral context, edge cases such as validation failures, duplicate entries, or return values are left unexplained; output schema may cover returns, but the tool description itself is incomplete on its own.

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 each parameter already has a clear definition. The description adds one useful semantic detail—that recipe and note can be combined—but provides minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Add') and a specific resource ('entry to the meal plan'), and further clarifies that an entry can be a recipe, a free-text note, or both. This clearly differentiates it from sibling meal plan tools like list, remove, and summary tools.

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 input-mode guidance ('Either specify a recipe or a free-text note (or both)') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly articulated.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool lists entries and shows specific fields, implying a read-only operation without explicit confirmation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations such as pagination, but for a simple list tool this is minimally sufficient. The description is not misleading, but lacks deeper behavioral context like whether entries are filtered by date range or if the list is exhaustive.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all meal plan entries sorted by date'). The second sentence adds relevant detail about what is shown without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does and what information is displayed. However, it lacks any mention of limitations or when to use this tool instead of meal_plan_summary, which might be relevant for full context. The tool is simple enough that this gap is minor, so a 4 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 zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. Per the rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything further. The description's mention of sorting and displayed fields is relevant to output, not parameters.

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 ('List all meal plan entries') and resource ('meal plan entries'), and adds sorting by date and the fields shown (dates, recipe names, notes). This clearly distinguishes it from other list tools and meal_plan_summary, which likely aggregates rather than lists entries. The verb 'list' and explicit resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like meal_plan_summary, meal_plan_shopping, and meal_plan_add are present, but the description does not mention them or explain when a user should prefer this list tool over a summary or other meal-plan tools. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'list'.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove an entry' without mentioning side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or error behavior. It does not even explicitly state that the removal is permanent, which is a significant gap for a mutation 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 description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and concise, 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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter, the description lacks critical context such as whether the operation is irreversible, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid entry_id), or any return value. Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention any outcome, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a mutation.

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 100% coverage for the only parameter (entry_id), including its source from meal_plan_list_tool. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('an entry from the meal plan'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like meal_plan_add_tool and meal_plan_list_tool. It unambiguously states what the tool 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?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it implies usage by stating the action. The parameter hint that entry_id comes from meal_plan_list_tool output provides some context for usage, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool scans the meal plan, finds scheduled recipes, and adds unfulfilled ingredients. It also notes the optional date range filter. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation or a mutation, whether it overwrites existing shopping list items, or whether it can be undone. The description is decent but leaves 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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence explains the workflow and optional filtering. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 only 2 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the workflow and the optional date filter. The only gap is the lack of clarity on whether the operation is destructive or reversible, but for a tool with this simplicity, the description is sufficient.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (start_date and end_date) with format and inclusivity. The description adds the context that these filter the meal plan scan, which is helpful but not deeply beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Add missing ingredients'), a resource ('shopping list'), and the source ('all planned recipes' / meal plan). It also distinguishes itself from a simple shopping list add by describing the workflow it automates ('plan meals → shop' in one step). This is clear and specific.

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 explains when to use it: when you want to add missing ingredients for all planned recipes to the shopping list. It also mentions the optional date range filter, which helps the agent decide how to scope the call. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g., when only adding a single item, use shopping_list_add_tool).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured summary with recipe and section names, which is useful, but it does not describe any side effects, read-only nature, or behavior around missing data. Since it's a summary/read tool, the lack of explicit read-only disclosure is a minor 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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It earns its place without wasted words, though it could add a bit more context about the summary's scope.

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, so return values are covered. The description is adequate for a simple read/summary tool, but it lacks explicit guidance on how it differs from meal_plan_list_tool and whether any filters are required. Given the sibling set includes several meal-plan tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('structured meal-plan summary'), and mentions it includes recipe and section names. It is clear enough to distinguish from meal_plan_list_tool, which likely lists meal plans, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling.

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 tool is for retrieving a summary of a meal plan, and the optional date/section filters suggest when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus meal_plan_list_tool or meal_plan_shopping_tool, nor does it mention any exclusions or 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that printing is triggered, but does not mention side effects, printer dependencies, idempotency, failure modes, or whether the battery must already exist.

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 or redundant phrasing. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing semantic detail that is penalized 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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is incomplete: it lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details. For a tool with no annotations, more context is needed for an agent to know how to call it successfully.

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 does not explain the only required parameter, 'battery'. An agent cannot tell whether this expects an ID, a name, or some other identifier, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 action ('Trigger printing') and specific resource ('battery label'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling print tools like print_product_label_tool or print_recipe_label_tool. The resource is specific enough that an agent can infer what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many other label-printing and battery-management siblings. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'trigger printing', which implies a physical action but does not mention side effects, required hardware, error states, or what the output schema contains. The presence of an output schema is not acknowledged in the description.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which makes it concise, but it lacks essential details. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary context, so it is under-specified rather than appropriately 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 parameter) and an output schema exists, but the description does not explain the return value or the meaning of the chore parameter. Given the large set of sibling print tools, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'chore' (string) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain whether 'chore' is an ID, a name, or a label text, nor its expected format. This is a significant gap for a single 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?

The description clearly states the action (trigger printing) and the resource (chore label), which distinguishes it from sibling print tools for other entities (e.g., stock, product, battery). However, it does not explain what a 'chore label' contains or how it is generated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 print_* tools. The name implies it's for chore labels, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. An agent would need to 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Trigger printing' without mentioning whether a printer must be configured, whether printing is irreversible, or what side effects or errors occur.

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 single sentence is efficient and free of filler, making it easy to parse. However, it is concise to the point of under-specification, which limits its practical 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 tool has no annotations and one opaque string parameter, and the description does not cover identifier format, printer prerequisites, or return/error behavior. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the missing parameter and side-effect 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the sole 'product' string parameter. An agent cannot tell whether this expects a product ID, SKU, name, or another identifier.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('trigger printing') and resource ('product label'). It differentiates from sibling print tools for recipes, chores, batteries, and shopping lists, though it does not clarify whether 'product' means a catalog product or a stock entry.

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 like print_stock_entry_label_tool or print_recipe_label_tool. The name implies the use case, but the description does not provide explicit context or exclusions.

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 is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic print action without explaining side effects, prerequisites (e.g., printer availability), success/failure indication, or any other behavior that would help the agent anticipate consequences. 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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is not concise in the sense of efficiently covering necessary details; it omits critical context. Under-specification is penalized rather than rewarded as conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is not complete enough. The parameter is unexplained, and the return behavior is not hinted at. The description does not provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional guessing.

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 does not explain the 'recipe' parameter at all. An agent cannot know whether to provide a name, ID, or other identifier, or what format is expected. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of any parameter 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 states a specific action (trigger printing) on a specific resource (a recipe label), which distinguishes it from sibling print tools like print_stock_entry_label_tool and print_product_label_tool. It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose clearly.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or reference sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('trigger thermal printing') without mentioning side effects (e.g., physical paper output, printer connectivity requirements) or any possible errors. The output schema exists but the description does not hint at what the tool returns or any safety 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The essential information (action and target) is front-loaded, and there is no 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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits practical context such as whether the action requires a physical printer, whether it is reversible, or any expected output format. These gaps are minor for a simple trigger action but still leave room for agent uncertainty.

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 adds no parameter information because none exists. This is appropriate; there is nothing to explain.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Trigger') and the specific resource ('thermal printing of the shopping list'). It distinguishes from sibling print tools (e.g., print_stock_entry_label, print_product_label) which target other entities. No ambiguity about what this tool 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a configured thermal printer, existing shopping list) or any exclusion conditions. Siblings like shopping_list_view_tool are not referenced for comparison.

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. 'Trigger printing' hints at a physical side effect but does not disclose whether printing is asynchronous, whether a printer must be configured, what happens when entry_id is invalid, or the reversibility/failure modes of a print job. This is a significant gap for a tool with real-world 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?

One grammatically complete sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and object. It is efficiently written; the thinness is a completeness problem, not a conciseness problem.

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 a physical printing side effect, no annotations, and one undocumented parameter, the description should explain what triggering entails, prerequisites, and failure behavior. The output schema covers return values, but the behavioral and selection context is largely 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 never mentions entry_id at all. It adds nothing about what entry_id refers to, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The agent is left to infer the parameter's meaning from the tool name alone.

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 ('Trigger printing') and a resource ('stock-entry label'), and the noun 'stock-entry' naturally distinguishes it from the sibling print_*_label_tools (product, recipe, chore, battery). It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it is clear but not exceptional.

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 for when to use this tool versus the many print_*_label_tool siblings or other stock tools. The only implied context is that a stock entry must exist to print its label, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects. It only restates the operation and notes product-name resolution; it does not mention that this modifies a recipe, how duplicates are handled, or what happens if the recipe or product does not exist. This is insufficient behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is concise, though it omits useful behavioral context that would make it more informative.

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 three fully documented parameters and an output schema, so the core call inputs are covered. However, with no annotations and no usage or error guidance, the description leaves behavioral gaps around mutation and failure cases, making it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema; the phrase 'using the product name' and the schema's 'resolved automatically' cover the product parameter, while recipe and amount are already documented.

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 ('Add an ingredient') and target ('an existing recipe') plus the lookup method ('using the product name'). It clearly conveys the function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as recipe_remove_ingredient_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 the tool is for adding ingredients to an already-created recipe, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. There are no exclusions or conditions, so the context must be inferred from the action itself.

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 disclosure burden. It does disclose a key trait: it skips ingredients already sufficiently in stock. However, it does not mention other side effects such as how existing list entries are handled, whether it creates new items, or what happens when a recipe is not found.

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 filler. The primary action and the key exclusion behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence is informative.

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's low complexity, single well-documented parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it. It could be more complete by contrasting it with shopping_list_add_missing_tool, but that is a minor gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents that it accepts a recipe name or numeric ID. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('missing ingredients for a recipe... shopping list'), and clearly scopes behavior to only missing items. This distinguishes it from generic shopping-list add tools and recipe consumption tools.

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

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

The description implies usage (when you need missing recipe ingredients on the shopping list) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the highly similar sibling shopping_list_add_missing_tool or recipe_fulfillment_tool. There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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 safety disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a preview ('without actually consuming') and thus non-destructive. It also describes the behavioral output (list of ingredients, amounts, stock sufficiency). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the non-mutating nature is explicitly conveyed, which is the key behavioral trait.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety property. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the output and the recommended usage. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description sufficiently conveys the non-destructive behavior and the situational context. It could mention error handling for unknown recipes, but that is minor and the core requirement—previewing consumption—is fully covered.

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 parameter 'recipe' is already documented as 'Recipe name or ID.' The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond confirming that the preview is for a recipe. This meets the baseline for high coverage but does not elevate the semantics further.

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 ('Preview'), a resource ('what stock would be consumed'), and explicitly distinguishes it from recipe_consume_tool by saying 'without actually consuming'. It also defines the output scope (each ingredient, amount needed, stock sufficiency), making it easy to differentiate from siblings.

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 an explicit usage directive: 'Use this before recipe_consume_tool to verify.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for just viewing recipe details) or compare it with other preview/simulation tools like recipe_fulfillment_tool, so it falls short of full exclusions.

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 disclosure. It clearly states the main effect (deducts each ingredient amount from stock) and advises checking fulfillment, but does not disclose whether it partially consumes if some ingredients are missing, whether it is reversible, or any error behavior. The mention of 'check fulfillment first' hints at a potential failure condition but leaves 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear secondary directive. Every word adds value; no fluff 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the core behavior and a prerequisite. However, it does not mention the existence of recipe_consume_preview_tool for dry-running, which could be helpful context, and it doesn't clarify behavior when ingredients are insufficient. Still, it is adequate for a straightforward consume action.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'recipe' parameter (name or numeric ID). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, staying at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Consume stock for all ingredients of a recipe' and elaborates that it deducts each ingredient amount from stock. It distinguishes from siblings like stock_consume_tool (single item) and recipe_consume_preview_tool (preview only) by focusing on the actual execution.

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 provides a clear usage context ('as if you cooked it') and a critical prerequisite: 'Check fulfillment first to make sure all ingredients are available.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, the prerequisite implies a logical order. It lacks direct comparison to recipe_consume_preview_tool or recipe_fulfillment_tool.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior beyond the schema: product names are resolved automatically rather than passed as IDs. However, it does not mention what happens if a product name cannot be resolved, whether products must already exist, or any other side effects of creation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The second sentence earns its place by differentiating the tool from its sibling.

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 a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what the tool does, how it differs from recipe_create_tool, and how product names are handled. It could add a note about unresolved product names, but that is a minor gap for a simple creation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that the ingredients parameter uses product names rather than IDs and that resolution happens automatically, which goes beyond the raw schema 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 specific action ('Create a recipe') and the key distinguishing scope: ingredients are specified by product name instead of ID. It explicitly names recipe_create_tool as the alternative, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from its sibling.

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 directly says this is 'the easier alternative to recipe_create_tool' and explains when to choose it: when you want to use product names directly, which are resolved automatically. This gives the agent a clear routing signal versus the ID-based sibling.

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