Neotoma

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 retrieving a signed URL, which implies temporary or authenticated access, but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, expiration handling, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to grasp 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 complexity of a tool that generates signed URLs (involving security and temporary access), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral nuances, return values, or error conditions, leaving users with an incomplete picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details. The description doesn't explain the parameters at all—it doesn't mention 'file_path' or 'expires_in', their purposes, formats, or constraints. This lack of semantic information makes it hard for users to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action ('retrieve') and resource ('signed URL for accessing a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'retrieve_entities' or 'retrieve_entity_snapshot' that might also involve retrieval operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for temporary access, secure sharing, or how it differs from direct file retrieval tools like 'parse_file' or 'store'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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