Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• lemonade_buy_upgradeB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'permanent' but omits critical side effects such as cost deduction, inventory changes, or one-time applicability. It does not clarify that this is a state-changing action.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks detail, which is acceptable for a simple buy action, though it could be slightly more informative.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is too terse. It fails to specify how to obtain valid upgrade names, what happens after purchase, or the economic impact, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds 'named' to indicate the upgrade parameter should be a specific identifier, and the schema provides an enum of possible values. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain what each upgrade does or where to find the list, making the parameter only marginally clearer.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action (buy) and the object (permanent stand upgrade), using specific domain terminology. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like lemonade_buy_supplies by explicitly targeting upgrades.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention the upgrade catalog (lemonade_get_upgrade_catalog) or any conditions like available funds or location, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

• lemonade_buy_suppliesB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention that the response reports whether the purchase was applied and includes updated state, which gives some insight into the transaction outcome. However, it does not disclose cost implications, inventory limits, or failure conditions beyond the response flag, leaving significant behavioral aspects unclear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetitive content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a transactional tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It mentions the response reports success and updated state but omits critical context such as how costs are calculated, whether supplies have inventory limits, or what happens on failure. In the context of the game (evident from sibling tools), more operational detail is expected.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only 'pack' having a direct description. The tool description adds 'fixed package sizes' but does not clarify the 'packs' parameter (the quantity multiplier) or the meaning of 'item' beyond the enum. The description provides minimal additional value over the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Buy') and the resource ('one of three fixed package sizes'), which aligns with the tool name 'buy_supplies'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lemonade_buy_supply_basket' by emphasizing the fixed package sizes, implying a direct purchase of an individual supply item rather than a basket. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lemonade_buy_supply_basket' or other supply-related tools. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, inventory checks, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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

• lemonade_set_staffB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It identifies the mutation (hire/fire) and timing, but does not mention consequences such as costs, availability limits, irreversibility, or how the change affects current/future day scenarios.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. All content is relevant.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter setter, the description covers the core action and timing, but with no annotations or output schema it leaves out operational constraints and return behavior. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The phrase 'hire or fire' clarifies that the boolean 'hired' maps to the action, and 'one staff member' corresponds to the staff parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not add much beyond the schema and leaves the enum values unexplained.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Clearly states the action (hire or fire) and the resource (one staff member) and the temporal scope (subsequent days), distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like lemonade_get_staff_catalog.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as consulting lemonade_get_staff_catalog before hiring or firing. It only implies the change applies to future days, but no explicit when/when-not or prerequisite is given.

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

• lemonade_start_dayB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one specific behavior: returning a structured `game_rejected_action` error when supplies are insufficient. However, it does not disclose whether starting the day is irreversible, consumes resources, or has other side effects, leaving significant gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two short sentences with no fluff. It opens with the primary action and then adds the key error behavior. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to mention what 'configured day' means, what prerequisites (e.g., location, supplies, recipe) must be in place, or how this tool relates to siblings like `lemonade_run_day`. The error note is useful but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a clear action: 'Start the configured day.' It names the specific resource and verb. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `lemonade_run_day`, which likely has overlapping functionality, so it loses a point for sibling ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The only extra information is the error condition for insufficient supplies, which is behavioral rather than usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing with other tools, or when not to use it.

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

• lemonade_wait_for_day_endB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 the action and return value but omits side effects such as irreversibility, blocking behavior, or what 'advance' means for the running day. For a state-mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, action-first, with no redundant wording. Each sentence contributes core information: what the tool does and how to choose among modes.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the primary action and mode distinction, but lacks context around what constitutes a 'running day', when to use this vs siblings, and the timeout parameter. With no output schema, the return format is also unspecified, making the description adequate but not complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the mode enum values ('skip for benchmarks, fast or realtime for visible observation'), but timeout_ms is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and units undefined. The compensation is partial at best.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Advance' with a clear resource 'a running day' and outcome 'return the next decision state'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as run_day or observe, which focus on different phases of the simulation lifecycle.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode ('skip for benchmarks, fast or realtime for visible observation'), which is helpful. However, it does not directly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_day or get_day_results, leaving tool-selection context implied.

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

• lemonade_get_day_resultsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description must disclose read-only behavior and edge cases. 'Return' implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects. It also does not explain what happens when no day has completed, or whether the 'visible report' differs from any hidden data. The content list is helpful, but significant behavioral context is missing.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence (17 words) that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds meaning, including the specific report contents and time scope. There is no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple with no schema or output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists the key data categories, which is good. However, it lacks context about when it is appropriate to call (e.g., after lemonade_wait_for_day_end) and does not address the no-day-completed edge case. This makes it slightly under-specified for an agent unfamiliar with the workflow.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Per the rubric, zero params warrant a baseline of 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource: 'the visible report for the most recently completed day.' It also enumerates contents (P&L, satisfaction, missed sales, displayed feedback), which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like lemonade_get_month_history or lemonade_get_business_report. This is a precise, unambiguous statement.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called after a day completes, nor does it reference sibling tools for historical or broader reports. The phrase 'most recently completed day' implies a timing constraint but no explicit recommendation or exclusion is given.

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

• lemonade_get_game_rulesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral limitation—that only rules explicitly stated in help text or setup controls are returned, not inferred rules. However, it does not mention return format, side effects, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is mostly sufficient. It explains the function and source scope, but could be slightly more explicit about the expected return type or any prerequisites.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the description does not need to document parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary information.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: it returns game rules from visible help text or setup controls. This distinguishes it from other getter tools like get_day_weather and get_location_catalog, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it; there are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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

• lemonade_get_supply_catalogA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only states what the tool returns, not that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor any prerequisites or limitations. This is a minimal disclosure similar to the 'Update shared drive settings' example.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a high score for efficiency.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It states the output (units and cost of every supply package) but could be more complete by clarifying whether this is all supply packages or filtered by location/state, and by describing the return format. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it does not attempt to add unnecessary detail.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  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 specific resource: 'the displayed units and cost of every supply package.' This distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools like get_location_catalog and get_upgrade_catalog by specifying exactly what data it returns.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. It does not mention that this is for viewing available supplies before purchasing, nor does it reference related tools like buy_supplies or buy_supply_basket. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.

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

• lemonade_set_advertisingA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the setting action and the day scope but omits keys like whether the budget overwrites an existing value, any limits beyond the schema, or consequences. The 'whole-dollar increments' hint helps but is insufficient.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds meaning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple setter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits parameter unit and default/override behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete without annotations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that the budget is in whole-dollar increments, which relates to the multipleOf 100 constraint, but it does not explicitly state the unit is cents (advertising_cents) nor the allowed range. This partial compensation earns a middle score.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('advertising budget') with a temporal scope ('for the next day'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_price or set_recipe.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'for the next day' implies when to use it, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives is provided. It is not misleading, just lacks explicit exclusion or context.

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

• lemonade_set_priceA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds the '10-cent increments' constraint, which is already covered by the schema's multipleOf. It does not mention persistence, side effects, validation behavior, or whether the price affects other systems (e.g., sales, profit). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource immediately, making it efficient and scannable.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action and units, but it omits behavioral details such as return values, error cases, or how the price fits into the broader game loop. Given the simplicity, this is marginally adequate, but it could be more complete by noting whether the price persists or affects day results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'per cup' and '10-cent increments', which clarifies the parameter's meaning and matches the schema's multipleOf. However, it does not explain the range (10-500) or provide additional context beyond what the parameter name and schema constraints already suggest. The description adds some value but not fully.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('selling price per cup'), and the unit ('cents'), making it immediately apparent what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling set_* tools like set_recipe by specifying the per-cup price context.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when the user wants to change the selling price per cup, which is clear from the tool name and context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide timing or prerequisite guidance (e.g., before starting a day). It is thus adequate but not explicit.

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

• lemonade_get_business_reportA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only lists the report contents without stating that it is a read-only operation, whether a game day must be active, or any other behavioral traits. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with a front-loaded verb and a clear list of content areas. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately enumerates the return contents. However, it omits any statement about when the report is valid (e.g., before/after starting a day) or how it relates to game state, leaving a minor gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description does not need to explain inputs. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's mention of the report contents indirectly confirms that no inputs are required.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource: the player-visible business report with an enumerated list of its contents (balance sheet, inventory, location bars, staff, upgrades, P&L). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_day_results or get_month_history.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lemonade_observe or get_month_history. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

• lemonade_select_locationA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and timing but does not mention potential side effects, costs, or any prerequisites, leaving the mutation behavior under-specified.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words, effectively front-loading the action ('Move') and the temporal context ('for the next day').

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a low-complexity tool with one enumerated parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic action and timing. It could be enhanced by referencing the location catalog or game effects, but it is not severely incomplete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, but the single 'location' parameter is fully enumerated with clear, self-explanatory options. The description adds that the location is for the next day, but it does not elaborate on the meaning or consequences of different locations.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb 'Move' and clearly identifies the resource ('lemonade stand') and temporal scope ('for the next day'), making it easy to distinguish from other lemonade tools like buying supplies or setting prices.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the tool is used to change the stand's location for the upcoming day, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it reference the location catalog or other setup tools.

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

• lemonade_get_location_catalogA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is from the player's perspective and that popularity/satisfaction are approximate, indicating estimated or limited values. 'Browse' implies a read-only operation, though not explicitly stated.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes only essential details. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a catalog tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the fields returned (name, description, rent, popularity/satisfaction bars) and the full scope ('every location'). It could mention ordering or usage context, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple browse operation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool takes zero parameters, so according to the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema confirms this.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: browsing every location with name, description, rent, and popularity/satisfaction bars. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('location catalog'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lemonade_select_location.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer that it's for viewing available locations.

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

• lemonade_get_day_weatherA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Return', indicating a read-only operation, and enumerates the data returned. However, it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether any state is consumed, which would add useful transparency.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the data returned. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives a reasonably complete inventory of what is returned (calendar, weather range/icons, daily event, location). It could be richer with formatting details, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and nothing in the input schema requires clarification.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and resource (displayed calendar, weather range and icons, daily event, and current location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_day_results or observe by focusing on weather and current day display.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lemonade_get_day_results or lemonade_observe. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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

• lemonade_get_staff_catalogA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the content ('names, card descriptions, daily costs, hired state') and 'as displayed' adds context about the source, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any potential side effects.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Browse'. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter catalog getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what data is returned. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but these are unlikely to be relevant for a simple staff catalog.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the resource ('staff') and the specific information it returns ('names, card descriptions, daily costs and hired state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling catalog tools by naming 'staff' explicitly.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other catalog tools like lemonade_get_upgrade_catalog or lemonade_get_supply_catalog. The description only states the basic function without context or exclusions.

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

• lemonade_set_recipeA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 action but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or what happens if called after the day has started. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and timing, with no unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple setter with three parameters, the description covers the purpose and timing adequately. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., idempotency, restrictions) and no mention of return values or error cases makes it incomplete for an agent that needs to fully understand the tool's effects.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by clarifying the meaning of the parameters: 'lemons', 'cups of sugar', and 'ice cubes' per pitcher. It adds units and context that the schema does not provide.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Set the exact lemons, cups of sugar, and ice cubes used per pitcher.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('recipe'), and the timing ('before starting the day') distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like set_price and set_advertising.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context for when to use the tool ('before starting the day'), which implies it should not be used after the day begins. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

• lemonade_buy_supply_basketA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses partial success behavior ('later lines may still succeed after an earlier rejection') and response semantics ('Each line reports how many packs were applied'). This goes beyond a trivial statement but still omits details like inventory deduction or why a rejection might occur, yet the key behavioral traits are well covered.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides critical behavioral nuance about partial success. Every word earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description is relatively complete for a batched purchase tool: it explains the line-based operation and partial failure semantics, which are important for an agent. However, it does not specify the exact output format or the meaning of 'visible', and with no output schema, those details could be clarified. Still, it covers the core complexity of a multi-purchase tool well.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% coverage for the top-level 'purchases' parameter, but nested fields like 'pack' have descriptions (1=small, etc.). The description adds the concept of each array element being a 'line' and clarifies that 'how many packs were applied' indicates possible partial application. It partially compensates for the low top-level coverage but does not fully explain the item/pack/packs structure beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Buy'), the resource ('several visible supply packages'), and the manner ('in one ordered basket'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool lemonade_buy_supplies by emphasizing 'several' and 'ordered basket', making the batched nature explicit.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use for multiple purchases via 'several', but does not explicitly state when to use this over lemonade_buy_supplies or mention alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'for a single package, use buy_supplies'), so the guidance is only inferred rather than explicit.

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

• lemonade_observeA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that output is semantic text and uses approximate UI bars rather than hidden ratings, which is valuable context. It does not mention side effects, but 'observe' strongly implies a read-only operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that leads with the action and adds meaningful detail about the output type. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers its purpose, output format, and key behavioral nuance. No critical context appears missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than parameters, and no parameter meaning is needed.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Observe the current player-visible game state as semantic text.' This distinguishes it from sibling getters such as weather or history tools, and it even specifies the output format as semantic text with approximate UI bars.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling getters or action tools. The description implies it is for observing overall state but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

• lemonade_get_month_historyA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns data, but does not elaborate on whether the current day is included, how missing days are handled, or any ordering or pagination. The phrase 'available' hints at completeness but lacks detail.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then enumerates the specific data fields. Every word contributes to clarity, with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the scope. It could be slightly more explicit about whether 'current month' means calendar month or trailing 30 days, but overall it is complete enough for typical usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'completed-day values from the current month's Results views' with a list of fields (sales, revenue, visitors, earnings). This distinguishes it from day-specific getters like lemonade_get_day_results, making the purpose unmistakable.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies this is for retrieving monthly aggregated completed-day values, which gives clear context for when it would be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, 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.

• lemonade_run_dayA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals atomicity, that it captures visible results, returns the next decision state, and that expected_career_day prevents accidental duplicate execution after a timeout. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond 'start and skip', permissions needed, or timeout behavior details, leaving some gap for a mutation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause contributes meaning—atomicity, result capture, decision state, and the idempotency guard. No filler or unnecessary detail.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, atomicity, result capture, return state, and duplicate-execution protection. It omits explicit timeout_ms behavior and return format details, but these are not severe given the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains expected_career_day as a guard against duplicate execution, which adds value beyond the schema, but it does not mention timeout_ms or its semantics at all. Therefore, partial compensation only.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Atomically start and skip the configured day, capture its visible results, and return the next decision state.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like lemonade_start_day and lemonade_wait_for_day_end by emphasizing the atomic skip and the return of a decision state, not just starting or waiting.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  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 you need to atomically start and skip a day, capture results, and receive the next decision state in one call. It does not explicitly name alternatives like lemonade_start_day + lemonade_wait_for_day_end or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion guidance of a 5.

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

• lemonade_update_notebookA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 conveys that the notebook is replaced (an overwrite), but does not go into details like persistency, undoability, or return values. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place, providing both the operation and the intended content without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully captures the purpose and expected content. The sibling read_notebook provides the complementary read operation, so no additional details are necessary.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema only defines 'content' as a string with a max length, with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining what should go into the content field (hypotheses, experiments, facts), giving the agent valuable guidance despite the 0% schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Replace') and the resource ('your persistent player notebook'), making it distinct from the sibling read_notebook tool. It also specifies the content type (hypotheses, experiments, facts), providing a complete purpose.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to replace the notebook with a concise set of remembered items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the complementary read_notebook is implied, and the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool.

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

• lemonade_read_notebookA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds meaningful context: the notebook is private, contains only user-chosen notes, and survives context compaction and runner restarts. This goes beyond a simple tautology and helps the agent understand persistence and access scope. It does not mention return format, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences and entirely front-loaded with the purpose ('Read your private persistent player notebook'). Every clause adds value: privacy, user-choice, persistence. There is no repetition or filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, what it contains, and how it survives restarts. It does not detail the return payload, but since it's simply 'read' with no params, this is a minor gap. Overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema documents no properties, and the description adds no parameter info, which is correct because there are none. No additional semantic value needed beyond the obvious lack of inputs.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read your private persistent player notebook.' It identifies a specific resource (notebook) and action (read), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lemonade_update_notebook. The mention of 'private' and 'persistent' adds specificity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context that this is for reading personal notes that persist across context compaction and restarts. It implies use when you need to recall previously written notes. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the verb 'read' make it obvious.

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

• lemonade_get_upgrade_catalogA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'names, card descriptions, prices and ownership state' in the displayed form, implying a read-only snapshot. It does not explicitly state there is no mutation, but 'browse' and the sibling buy_upgrade make this evident.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what is included with no redundant words. It is concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource and the fields returned (names, descriptions, prices, ownership state). 'As displayed' also indicates the data reflects the current game UI. No critical information is missing.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is fully covered. No additional parameter semantics are necessary.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description specifies the exact action (browse), the resource (upgrades), and the output contents (names, card descriptions, prices, ownership state). It clearly distinguishes from sibling buy_upgrade and other catalogs by naming 'upgrades' and 'ownership state'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies this is the read-only catalog for upgrades, and the context signals (sibling tools like buy_upgrade) make the usage clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions, so it stops 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.