john11

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool performs graph traversal, but it does not state whether it returns a shortest path, how max_hops affects the search, what happens when no path exists, or whether connections are traversed bidirectionally. The poetic phrasing adds little operational transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('A path between two verses through recorded connections') before the clarifying contrast. It could be slightly more concrete, but it is appropriately sized and every phrase 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?

The tool has moderate complexity (source, target, max_hops) and no annotations, but the description covers only the core concept. It omits key operational details like hop limits, path selection behavior, and no-path handling. An agent would likely need additional inferences or trial calls to use the tool correctly and confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that source and target are verses, which adds meaning to those two parameter names. However, max_hops is completely unaddressed, and the description does not explain hop counting, default behavior, or limits, leaving a required-use parameter semantically under-specified.

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 identifies the resource and function: a path between two verses through recorded connections. It distinguishes the concept from a linear 'line', implying graph-based traversal, which separates it from tools like get_context or get_connection. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'compute', so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'rather than the line' hints that this tool is for web-like distance between verses, not sequential context, but it never explicitly states when to use find_path versus siblings like get_connection, get_connections, or get_context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-naming, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that both passages are returned whether or not a connection is found, which goes beyond the tool name. However, it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, how missing connections are represented, or what kinds of connection values might appear.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core question and immediately provides the key behavioral guarantee, so every sentence 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?

The tool is simple and an output schema is present, which lowers the burden of describing return values. Still, the description leaves the translation parameter unexplained and does not disambiguate from the similar sibling get_connections, making the definition adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for bare parameter names. It implicitly maps source and target to 'these two verses,' but it gives no format, example, or additional meaning for those parameters, and it entirely ignores the translation parameter despite that parameter having no schema 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 identifies a specific lookup: whether a recorded connection exists between two verses and what kind it is. It stands apart from the plural sibling get_connections by describing a pairwise two-verse relationship, and it adds the useful guarantee that it returns both passages either way.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need to check for a connection between exactly two verses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like get_connections or find_path, so an agent must infer the right scenario from 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what output entries contain (relationship, shared wording, canonical URLs), but it omits side-effect/safety information and edge behavior like pagination, error handling, or how defaults such as translation and limit apply.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan, though the poetic phrase 'the lateral axis' adds slight ambiguity without much practical 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with no parameter descriptions, yet the description does not fill those gaps. It gives a sense of the data shape but leaves out usage context, parameter behavior, and expected return structure, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 contains no descriptions for any of the four parameters, and the description does not explain reference, limit, translation, or relationship_type. An agent cannot determine valid values, allowed relationship types, or how translation affects results, making parameter usage effectively undocumented.

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 identifies the resource as 'the connections recorded for a verse' and implies an action of retrieving them. It states what each connection carries, giving a clear picture of the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_connection or search_verses.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_connection, find_path, or search_verses. The description only implies that this tool is for retrieving verse connections, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds 'canonical order' and 'linear axis' as behavioral context, but it does not address boundary behavior, defaults for before/after, translation handling, or what happens at the start/end of a book. The agent is left inferring most behavior.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the essential concept and expresses it without fluff. It is reasonably scannable, though slightly cryptic in phrasing.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, so a richer description is needed. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return shape, but the description still fails to convey parameter semantics, sibling distinctions, or edge behavior. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the before, after, reference, or translation parameters. The phrase 'around a reference' gives a weak conceptual clue about reference and before/after, but it adds no operational meaning or value constraints. With 4 undocumented parameters, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the core purpose: returning verses around a reference. It also adds the key distinguishing trait of 'canonical order / linear axis,' which separates it from a simple verse lookup. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings like get_verse or search_verses by name.

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 through 'verses around a reference,' but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_verse or search_verses. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual cues beyond the basic definition.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent what data is returned but does not state that this is a safe read, how missing or invalid task IDs are handled, or whether any authentication or boundary constraints apply.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core idea ('One task in full') and then itemizes the meaningful contents without redundancy. Every word earns its place and there is no restatement of the schema.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter fetch with an output schema available, the description plus the schema is largely sufficient: the agent knows it gets a full task and what the task consists of. It still lacks usage/alternative guidance and behavioral safety notes, so it is not fully complete, but the missing return-format detail is already covered by the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions task_id or explains how it selects the task. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the 'one task' wording implies ID-based lookup, but this is minimal compensation for a schema with no property 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 phrase 'One task in full' clearly identifies the operation as returning a single complete task and lists the fields that full task contains (question, materials, required output schema, budget, boundary). This distinguishes it from list_tasks, which would return multiple tasks, and from resource-specific tools like get_verse or get_connection, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 explicit guidance about when to use get_task versus alternatives such as list_tasks or get_context, and it names no sibling tools. The 'full' wording implies the agent should use it when complete task details are needed, but this is implicit rather than stated.

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 provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only operation and previews the return values (text, URL, connection count), which is useful. But it does not explain what 'connections it carries' means, how the translation parameter affects behavior, or what happens when the reference is invalid or absent.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: the operation and the return contents. This is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the returns need not be exhaustively spelled out. However, correctness depends on understanding parameter values and selection criteria among siblings, both of which are under-specified. The description is adequate for a basic read operation but not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It fails to mention 'reference' or 'translation' at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'reference' denotes a verse identifier from the word 'verse.' No syntax, format, or default meaning is provided, which is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Read one verse,' a specific verb and resource that immediately clarifies the tool's function. The mention of returning text, canonical URL, and connection count further distinguishes it from siblings like search_verses (which searches) and get_connections (which returns connections themselves), 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.

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

The phrase 'Read one verse' conveys an implied use case: retrieving a single verse. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_verses or get_connection, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Guidance is present only by inference.

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 carries the full behavioral burden. It adds color about tasks being bounded and evidence-bearing and about operator authorization, but it does not disclose whether listing itself is read-only, requires authorization, or has 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.

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

The description is short and the first sentence is front-loaded, but the second and third sentences are more about the nature of tasks than about the list operation, making them marginally relevant. It is concise but not tightly focused.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, but the missing parameter semantics and unclear usage guidance leave an agent unable to use the tool confidently. For a simple operation, this is a noticeable gap.

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 one parameter, task_type, with no description in the schema and no explanation in the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining valid values or how filtering works.

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 states the tool lists open tasks in the agent commons, which clearly identifies the resource and the operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_task, but the meaning is still reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_task. The authorization note is about taking a task, not about listing it, so it does not clarify selection criteria.

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 carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a full-text search and that it returns passages themselves, implying a read-only operation. But it does not mention match semantics, sorting, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are relevant for a search 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the core action and result are stated immediately.

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?

The tool is fairly simple and has an output schema, so return-value elaboration is not required. However, the description omits any guidance on the 'translation' parameter (e.g., what values are valid, what the default 'BSB' means), the effect of 'limit,' and when the search tool is preferred over siblings. These gaps are not fatal but make the definition only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only gives meaning to 'query' via 'containing a phrase'; 'limit' and 'translation' receive no explanation at all, leaving their semantics to the agent's assumptions.

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 says 'Find verses containing a phrase' with a specific verb, resource, and search behavior. It further clarifies 'Full-text search over the corpus; returns the passages themselves,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_verse (exact retrieval) and get_context (context around passages).

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 when to use it—when you need to find verses by phrase content rather than by reference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against get_verse and get_context.

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