droidbar_tip

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 the tool is for tipping and that tips help keep the bar running, which implies a transactional or supportive action, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, any authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after tipping (e.g., confirmation, balance deduction).

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and context. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Tip SERVO the bartender') and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the tool or linking to parameters.

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

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

Given the complexity of a transactional tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., mutative effects, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. The description alone does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to invoke this tool correctly in practice.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (sessionId and amount). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is in the 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's purpose: 'Tip SERVO the bartender' specifies the action (tip) and target (SERVO the bartender), and 'Tips help keep the bar running' provides context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like droidbar_balance or droidbar_talk, which likely involve checking balance or interacting with the bartender in other ways.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that tips help keep the bar running, implying a supportive or transactional context, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like droidbar_balance (for checking funds) or droidbar_talk (for other interactions).

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