BuildBetter

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 mentions generating queries but fails to detail key traits: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the format of the generated query. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate a query from predefined templates for common tasks.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining more about what the tool returns or how it behaves, but it does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters: 'template' (with examples like 'find-person') and 'parameters' (as an object depending on the template). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description offers no extra parameter insights.

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: 'Generate a query from predefined templates for common tasks.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('query from predefined templates'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build-query' or 'run-query', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect 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 'build-query', 'run-query', and 'nl-query', there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this template-based approach. This lack of comparative guidance limits the agent's ability to select the right tool.

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