vibe

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds some context by implying real-time or current status ('online and what they're building'), but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, data freshness, or auth needs, resulting in moderate added value.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain return values or how data is presented, and with siblings present, it lacks differentiation. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete for optimal agent use.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, which isn't needed here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and the tool's simplicity doesn't require extra param 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('see') and resource ('who's online and what they're building'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'vibe_status' or 'vibe_discover', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like 'vibe_status' and 'vibe_discover' that might relate to status or discovery, there's no indication of context, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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