Yougile Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what the tool covers (parameters, types, required fields, access) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like output format, pagination, or whether it returns live data vs static documentation. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key aspects covered. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could arguably be slightly more specific about the operation parameter's behavior.

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 (1 optional parameter, output schema present, read-only annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it covers. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. A minor gap is not describing what the output looks like for different operation values, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'operation' parameter well, including its default and example values. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 clear purpose: describing YouGile domain tools and operations, including parameters, types, required fields, and access. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta/help tool that explains other tools rather than performing domain operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 an agent needs to understand YouGile tools, parameters, types, required fields, or access. The operation parameter with 'list' or a tool name provides clear context for how to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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