contrastapi

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, what data source is queried, whether it returns real-time or cached data, or the format of the expected output.

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?

While the description is only two words, this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The single 'sentence' fails to earn its place by providing zero actionable information about the tool's function.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, zero parameters documented, and a description that explains nothing about the tool's return values or behavior, the definition is completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand when or how to invoke this tool.

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

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

The input schema contains zero parameters, which per the evaluation guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. The description neither adds nor subtracts value regarding parameters since none exist to document.

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 'Api Usage' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name in sentence case. It fails to specify what API usage information is retrieved (e.g., rate limits, historical calls, quota status) or distinguish its purpose from sibling tools like api_status.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as api_status or check_dependencies. There is no mention of prerequisites, required authentication context, or specific use cases where this tool provides value.

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