rate_shot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose a key behavior: setting a rating to null removes an existing rating. However, it does not mention other important aspects like whether ratings are overwritten, what happens if the shot does not exist, or any permission requirements. This gap prevents a higher score, but the core mutation behavior is partially addressed.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action, values, and the null behavior; the second gives a practical hint for obtaining the key. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, allowed inputs, and where to get the key. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a straightforward rating action this is acceptable. A small gap is the lack of clarification on overwriting behavior when the shot already has a rating, which keeps it from a 5.

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% per context signals, with both parameters fully described in the input schema. The description adds a minor hint ('Use db_key from shot history') but does not provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema. This aligns 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 the tool's purpose: 'Rate a completed shot as like, dislike, or null (remove rating).' It specifies the exact action (rate) and resource (completed shot), and the allowed values distinguish it from sibling tools that perform other actions like listing or retrieving shots. The reference to 'db_key from shot history' further clarifies the target resource.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: on completed shots, and instructs to use the db_key from shot history. It implicitly distinguishes from tools that retrieve or modify shooting data, and no explicit alternative is needed since no other sibling handles rating. The note about 'completed shot' offers a usage guideline, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, hence a 4.

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