tentra

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 states it 'List all saved architectures' but doesn't describe what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering, or sorting behavior), the return format, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits or permissions required). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse 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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details like return format or limitations. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'list' returns, but it doesn't, leaving some contextual gaps for the agent.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 'List' and the resource 'saved architectures', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_architecture' (which likely retrieves a single architecture) by implying a comprehensive listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools such as 'list_snapshots' or 'list_god_nodes', which prevents a perfect 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when the user asks to see, browse or find existing architectures'. This covers common user intents clearly. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., using 'get_architecture' for a specific architecture), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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