pizza-test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a password, which implies it's a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a mock/dummy password, if it has security implications, or what the return format is. The 'mock test' hint suggests it's for testing, but this is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative. For a simple tool, this is appropriately concise and structured.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'mock test' means, the nature of the returned password, or how this fits with sibling tools. For a tool that returns sensitive-sounding data (a password), more context is needed despite the low complexity.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 'Mock test tool that returns a password' states a purpose but is vague about what 'test' entails and doesn't specify the resource or context. It's not tautological (doesn't just restate 'pizza-test'), but it's too generic to be clear about the tool's specific function beyond returning a password.

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 its siblings (e.g., image generation tools). It mentions it's a 'test' tool, which implies limited or debugging use, but doesn't explicitly state when or why an agent should choose it over alternatives, leaving usage unclear.

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