tool_card_tested_with

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond returning entries, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no results are found. For a simple retrieval tool, minimal disclosure but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. 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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks detail on what the 'tool' parameter represents and the return format of the entries.

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 meaning to the llm_filter parameter by mentioning substring filtering. However, url and document_json parameters are not explained in the description and have no schema descriptions, leaving their purpose ambiguous despite being used arbitrarily.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'tested-LLM entries for a tool', and mentions optional filtering. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tool_card_inspect and tool_card_validate by specifying the 'tested-with' aspect.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for inspecting or validating tool cards, but description does not explain when to use this specific tool for tested-LLM entries.

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