bot_readiness

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

The disclosure 'read-only, requires AGENTGRAPH_API_KEY' transparently communicates the tool's safety and authentication needs. It also details the return structure, enhancing transparency beyond 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 concise with four sentences, each adding value. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, return structure, auth requirement, and usage timing.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, auth, and timing comprehensively. Lacks explanation of 'AgentGraph' but overall complete for this simplicity level.

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 mentions 'agent_id' implicitly by advising use after registration but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's UUID 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 tool description clearly states it checks a bot's readiness score on AgentGraph, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bot_bootstrap' and 'bot_quick_trust' by focusing on readiness tracking.

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 advises using the tool 'after registration to track onboarding progress,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving slight ambiguity.

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