lashing

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

The annotations already indicate read-write, idempotent, and destructive behavior; the description adds the 'once' constraint and the approval/coverage precondition. It does not explain what side effects occur or why destructiveHint is set, but it does not contradict the 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 one sentence, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds meaning: the target, the one-time behavior, and the precondition.

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 one simple parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the main decision point (approval/coverage) and the idempotence behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the destructive implication or routing relative to siblings, but those are mitigated by annotations and the clear 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 0%, and the description does not explain 'plan_id' beyond the property name. Since plan_id is the only required parameter and is central to the call, the description should at least clarify that it identifies the proposed plan to submit.

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 ('Send'), identifies the resource ('a proposed plan'), and names the target ('the carrier'). It distinguishes the tool from proposal-creation siblings by describing a submission action, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any 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 states a clear precondition ('if a grant covers it or a person approves it') and the one-time nature of the action, giving implicit guidance on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to the propose_* siblings.

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?

Annotations already cover mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing irreversibility ('can never be applied') and the scope (only proposed plans), which go beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or behavior for already-applied or nonexistent plans.

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 nine-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the critical consequence. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail; 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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description captures the core operation and its irreversible effect. Yet it omits practical context such as the source of plan_id, interactions with related plans, and error conditions for invalid targets, leaving the agent to fill in workflow 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. It clarifies that plan_id refers to a proposed plan, giving some meaning beyond the bare schema field name. However, it does not explain the ID format, where to obtain plan_id (e.g., from list_plans or a propose_* tool), or what happens if the plan is not in a proposed state. Partial compensation 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 uses a specific verb ('Drop') with a specific resource ('a proposed plan') and states the consequence ('so it can never be applied'). It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings: apply_plan applies a plan, propose_* create plans, and list_plans lists them, so an agent can select this tool unambiguously.

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 apply_plan or the propose_* siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the intended workflow entirely from sibling names and 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?

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are ordered 'earliest arrival first' and each sailing includes 'cut-offs and a routing_reference to book'. No contradiction with annotations 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that starts with the core resource (sailings between ports), then the ordering, then the key output details. Every clause earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Combined with a rich schema (6 parameters, 83% described), an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is sufficient for a basic call. Gaps remain: it does not explain how routing_reference feeds into propose_booking, what 'cut-offs' mean, or how open-world results should be interpreted.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description only redundantly references 'one port to another' for origin/destination and adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns sailings between an origin and destination, sorted by earliest arrival, with cut-offs and a routing_reference. This is distinct from the booking, tracking, and plan-management siblings, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with a 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?

Usage is implied: the tool finds sailings 'to book', so it naturally fits before propose_booking in a booking workflow. However, it never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives like propose_booking, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the carrier's latest arrival estimate is only included once the booking is confirmed, which helps the agent set expectations. No contradictions exist. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or rate limits, but given the read-only context, this is acceptable.

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—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the second adds a conditional detail (arrival estimate after confirmation). Every word earns its place, and the structure is scannable for an agent.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate every return field. It sufficiently covers the key content areas: status, meaning, next actions, route, cut-offs, equipment, and arrival estimate. The tool is a simple read operation with a single parameter, and the description provides enough context for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't mention error cases or authentication, but those are not essential for this basic get 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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'reference' with a clear description: 'A carrierBookingReference, or the carrierBookingRequestReference before confirmation.' The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies for high schema coverage. The description's reference to 'once the booking is confirmed' slightly aligns with the parameter's dual reference types but does not expand on the 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 clearly identifies the resource (a booking) and enumerates the information it returns: status, meaning, next actions, route, cut-offs, equipment, and arrival estimate. It distinguishes itself from list_bookings (which likely returns multiple bookings) and track_shipment (which may focus on location) by its emphasis on the booking's status interpretation and associated details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's not 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. It does not mention list_bookings, track_shipment, or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions for selecting this tool. The only implicit hint is the arrival estimate being included after confirmation, but that is a behavior, not usage guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result set is limited to bookings the instance created or changed, and results are sorted newest first. It does not clarify the meaning of 'lashing instance' or address pagination/limits, but with annotations present this is acceptable though minimal.

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 one short sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then adding scope and ordering. The unusual word 'lashing' slightly obscures the message but not enough to lower the conciseness score below 4.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what is needed: entity type, scope, and ordering. The only gap is the unexplained 'lashing instance' qualifier, which likely relies on domain knowledge.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add beyond what the schema already defines. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description's scope and ordering notes do not conflict with that baseline.

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 phrase 'Bookings this lashing instance has created or changed' identifies a scoped list resource and distinguishes it from get_booking and propose_booking by focusing on bookings the instance itself created or modified. It lacks an explicit verb like 'List', and the term 'lashing instance' is opaque, preventing a top 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 implies when to use it: when you need bookings created or changed by this instance, newest first. It provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as get_booking or list_plans.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral scope by excluding applied, discarded, and refused plans. This clarifies exactly which subset of plans will be returned, going beyond the 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?

A single, compact sentence communicates the essential state filter with no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 parameters, a read-only annotation, an output schema present, and a precise state filter, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. No critical behavioral or contextual information 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, so the schema provides no semantic burden. The description does not need to explain parameters, earning the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter 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 clearly identifies the resource as proposed changes and the state filter (not applied, discarded, or refused), which distinguishes it from apply_plan and discard_plan. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'Lists', relying on the tool name to convey the action.

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 state filter gives clear context: this tool is for retrieving pending proposed changes that are still actionable. It implicitly tells an agent when to use this tool versus apply_plan/discard_plan, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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?

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that no data is transmitted until apply_plan, which is a meaningful behavioral trait for a tool whose readOnlyHint is false. It also clarifies a hidden source of input (operator's config). This adds useful context about side effects and data ownership.

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, both carrying essential meaning. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical constraint without any waste.

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 output schema exists and siblings show the surrounding workflow, the description is mostly complete. It covers the staging behavior and config-sourced party details, though it could have briefly mentioned that the prepared request is later listed via list_plans or applied via apply_plan. 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 67%, and the schema itself documents most parameters well (origin/destination as UN/LOCODEs, routing_reference from find_sailings). The description adds no per-parameter detail and leaves special_instructions unexplained, but it does provide a relevant global constraint about party 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 verb and resource: 'Prepare a new booking request.' It clearly distinguishes itself from apply_plan by noting that nothing is sent until apply_plan, and from propose_change/propose_cancellation by focusing on a new booking.

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 clear usage context: use this to prepare a request, then use apply_plan to send it. It also gives an explicit exclusion—party details come from the operator's config, not from the agent. It does not enumerate alternatives, but the staging/commit flow is clear enough.

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?

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that 'nothing is sent until apply_plan', clarifying that this is a proposal step, not an actual cancellation. This is not present in the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false). The description also clarifies the amendment-only option. It does not contradict any 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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and the critical apply_plan dependency. It is front-loaded with the main action and does not waste words. 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?

The description is complete for a proposal tool: it defines the action, the optional scope, and the key workflow constraint. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing booking), but given the simplicity and the sibling context, it is adequately 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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description essentially reiterates the amendment_only parameter's purpose ('or of its pending amendment only') without adding new details. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, the description provides minimal additional value, consistent with the baseline of 3 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 clearly states a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('cancellation'), and explicitly distinguishes between cancelling the whole booking or just the pending amendment via the 'amendment_only' parameter. It is distinct from sibling tools like propose_booking and propose_change, which are for creation and modification.

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 when to use this tool (when you want to cancel) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does note that nothing is sent until apply_plan, which gives context about the workflow, but it doesn't guide the agent on when to prefer this over propose_change or other siblings.

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?

The key behavior 'Nothing is sent until apply_plan' reveals the staged, non-committal nature of the tool, which is not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true). This adds meaningful context about when side effects occur. It does not contradict any annotations and gives the agent the crucial expectation that no external change is made until a later step.

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, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the timing distinction is concise, and the critical 'nothing is sent' constraint is stated in a single short sentence. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 1 required, output schema present), the description plus annotations and schema are largely sufficient. It clearly explains the tool's role in the plan lifecycle and the non-committal behavior. It could explicitly mention that apply_plan commits the change or that discard_plan abandons it, but the sibling list and the 'Nothing is sent until apply_plan' sentence imply this adequately.

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 no parameter-level detail; it relies entirely on the input schema, which already provides descriptions for reference, equipment, depart_from, and routing_reference (80% coverage). special_instructions lacks a schema description, and the description does not compensate for that gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers most 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 uses a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('a change to a booking'), and immediately distinguishes the pre-confirmation update from the post-confirmation amendment. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like propose_booking and propose_cancellation by stating it is a change to an existing booking, not a new booking or cancellation.

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 clear timing context ('update before confirmation, an amendment after') and implies the staging workflow with 'Nothing is sent until apply_plan.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like propose_booking, but the 'change to a booking' framing makes the intended use clear. The absence of an explicit 'use X instead' statement keeps it from a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the specific data returned (vessel call times, delays, container moves), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Where a shipment is') and immediately followed by specifics. No filler or redundancy, 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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the essential what and why. It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but given the simplicity and output schema presence, it is adequately 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%: the parameter 'reference' is fully described as 'A booking reference or a container number such as LSMU1000013'. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is complete, a 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 tool's purpose: it reports where a shipment is by providing vessel call times (planned, estimated, actual) and includes delay information and container moves. This is a specific verb-resource mapping, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_booking or find_sailings, 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 implies usage: if you want to know a shipment's location and timing, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., get_booking for booking details, find_sailings for schedules) and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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