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

Describes read-only nature (checking lifecycle) and credential handling from .tempmd file. Without annotations, it adequately discloses key behavioral traits, though could mention error handling.

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?

Two precise sentences: first lists output details, second covers credential behavior. No redundant words.

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?

Provides specific return values (status, expiry, restorability) and credential behavior. Lacks output schema but sufficient for a status check. Minor omission of error scenarios.

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?

Adds meaning to project_dir by explaining fallback, but temp_id and update_token lack any description. With only 33% schema coverage, more parameter details would help.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks a Temp's lifecycle status (active/cooling/expired) and whether it can be restored, distinguishing it from siblings like list_temps or restore_temp.

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?

Indicates credential fallback behavior when project_dir is omitted, offering implicit usage guidance. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool is a local read-only operation with no network call. It does not cover error handling or file existence, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 is clear and free of redundancy. Every word adds value, making it optimally concise.

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 lack of output schema, the description could detail the return format, but for a straightforward list tool it is largely complete. The mention of local records and no network call provides context for usage among many siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter. The description adds context by mentioning 'this project's .tempmd file', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema.

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 tool lists Temps from a local .tempmd file, specifying it involves no network call. This distinguishes it from siblings like publish_temp which likely involve remote operations.

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 implies usage for local reads without network, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools for different scenarios. Sibling tool names hint at other operations but no direct guidance.

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

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

Discloses key behaviors: publishes to temp.md, returns a stable public URL, automatically saves to .tempmd. Lacks details on permanence of URL or overwrite behavior, but for a new artifact tool, these are secondary.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the core functionality and supported types, then deliver usage guidelines. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, supported types, when-to-use, alternative, and record persistence. With no output schema, could briefly mention what the return value (URL) looks like, but 'stable public URL' is sufficient.

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?

Schema provides 100% coverage with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by linking parameters to the .tempmd record and the new-artifact context, but does not repeat schema info.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'publish', resource 'artifact to temp.md', and supported formats (HTML, Markdown, CSV, Mermaid). Distinguishes from sibling 'update_temp' explicitly, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use only for a NEW artifact' and provides a condition (check .tempmd) and alternative tool (update_temp) for existing temps. Guides the agent on correct invocation context.

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

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: reactivation with same URL, time limit, and credential fallback. However, it omits details on side effects (e.g., overwriting), error conditions, and safety implications. Without annotations, this is partially adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with constraints and behavior. Every part 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?

Despite clarity on core function, the description lacks details on return value, error handling (e.g., expiry beyond 7 days), and full parameter behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, the tool is not fully specified for safe invocation without additional probing.

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?

Schema coverage is low (33%) with only project_dir described. The description adds meaning by noting that credentials are read from .tempmd when omitted, implying optionality for temp_id and update_token. Still, temp_id and update_token remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 tool reactivates an expired Temp with the same canonical URL, specifying the constraint of 7-day expiry window and credential fallback. This distinguishes it from siblings like publish_temp (create new) or update_temp (modify existing).

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?

Describes when to use (within 7 days of expiry) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Implied from sibling names but lacks direct guidance for choosing between restore and publish/update.

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

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

Reveals credential reading behavior from .tempmd file, which is helpful. However, lacks details on idempotency, error states, or impact on existing comments.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words.

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?

Description omits return value, error scenarios, and does not fully explain all parameters. Lacks completeness for a mutation tool without output schema.

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 indirectly addresses project_dir and update_token by mentioning credential reading from .tempmd when omitted. However, temp_id is not described in schema or description, and schema coverage is only 50%. Description adds moderate value.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Toggle' and resource 'pinned visitor comments (Pindrop) on a Temp's page'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_temp which might also modify a Temp. But the focus on comments is distinct enough.

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 explicit usage guidelines. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: freezing the current version, creating a unique URL, and reading credentials from .tempmd. However, it omits whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or has authentication requirements beyond credential file.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes relevant nuance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers high-level purpose but lacks parameter explanations, error handling, return details, and prerequisites, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, covering only label and project_dir. The description adds no parameter-specific information; the mention of .tempmd relates to credential handling but not directly to parameter semantics. The missing temp_id and update_token remain undescribed.

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 tool freezes the current Temp version, creates a fixed URL, and is intended for sign-offs and exactness. It distinguishes from siblings like publish_temp and update_temp.

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 specifies when to use the snapshot (for sign-offs, where exactness matters) and contrasts with the canonical link serving the latest version. It also notes credential handling but lacks explicit not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: resets 7-day window, reads credentials from file when omitted, and preserves previous version on failure. This is comprehensive 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.

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

Four sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description covers key behaviors and edge cases but could mention return value or success indication for full completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is high (83%), and the description adds meaningful context about omitting temp_id and update_token to read from .tempmd file, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it pushes a new version of an artifact behind the same URL without needing re-sharing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish_temp which likely creates new temps.

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 explains the tool updates an existing temp and mentions fallback behavior from .tempmd file, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like restore_temp or list_temps for when not to use.

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