RoboHub Robot Catalog

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

No annotations exist; description implies read-only behavior by stating comparison. However, does not explicitly disclose non-destructive nature or any constraints like rate limits or permissions.

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?

Single, concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loads the core action and includes a relevant extra detail.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, description covers basic purpose but lacks detail on return format or what 'specs' means. Adequate but could be more 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 already fully describes parameters (slug_a, slug_b) with 'First/Second robot slug.' Description adds 'by slug' which is consistent but does not enhance meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'compare', resource 'two robots', method 'by slug', and additional output 'editorial verdict'. Distinguishes from sibling tools that handle single robots or search.

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?

Implies use for comparing two known robots by slug, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives listed. Sibling names are provided but not referenced.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the return content but does not explicitly state read-only nature, absence of side effects, or error handling. Adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

Single, informative sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned. Could mention result format but not critical.

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 the schema already describing the slug parameter and providing an example. The description reinforces its source but adds minimal new meaning.

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 retrieves a full catalog record for one robot by slug, listing specific details (description, specs, SDKs, use cases, pricing, links). It distinguishes from siblings like search_robots (list) and compare_robots (comparison).

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 use after search_robots by referencing slug from that tool. Sibling tools are listed, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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 provided. Description mentions it returns counts and examples, but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, or side effects. As a listing tool, behavior is likely safe, but transparency is minimal.

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, direct and to the point. Every word adds value with no 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?

Description covers purpose and typical use case. No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return format; it does so with 'counts and a few example robots.' Lacks detail on structure but sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds context about what is returned (counts, examples), which is sufficient for this zero-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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all robot categories with counts and example robots. Differentiates from sibling tools like compare_robots and get_robot by focusing on catalog overview.

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 as a 'good first call to understand catalog coverage,' implying its role as an initial exploratory tool. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool submits an external request, that RoboHub will reply by email within 2 business days with a shortlist/pricing/intros, that the service is free and vendor-neutral, and that it must only be called with consent and real contact details. This makes the side effects and external-communication nature clear. It could add an explicit 'irreversible' or 'data shared with third-party vendors' warning, but the current text is already substantive.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second describes the deliverable and timing, the third reassures about neutrality/cost, and the fourth states the critical consent/real-data requirement. The key purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 this is an external action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, expected outcome, response channel and timing, cost, neutrality, and explicit consent requirements. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the tool call itself returns immediately (e.g., a submission confirmation), but the email-reply framing already implies the call just submits the request.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 because each parameter already has its own explanation. The tool description adds context about the free shortlist and 2-business-day email response, which helps explain why fields like use_case, budget_range, and email matter, but it does not add explicit parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. A 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a B2B sourcing request to RoboHub on behalf of the user.' It then states the concrete outcome (shortlist of 2-4 matching robots, indicative pricing, warm vendor introductions). This clearly distinguishes it from the browsing/ comparing siblings (search_robots, compare_robots) because it is an external submission action, not an information retrieval tool.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when the user wants a vendor-intro shortlist from RoboHub, not just robot data. It also provides a hard precondition: 'Only call this with the user's explicit consent and their real contact details.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the pricing exclusion behavior but omits details on rate limits, pagination, or what happens with no results. It's a read operation but not explicitly labeled.

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, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the important behavioral note is placed at the end. 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return format (compact summaries with URLs) and pricing exclusion. It's sufficient for a search tool but could note pagination or result count limits beyond the parameter.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds value by giving examples for the query field and clarifying how max_price_usd excludes unknown-priced robots. This enriches the schema data.

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 searches RoboHub's catalog of commercial robots via free-text query and optional filters, returning compact summaries with catalog URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_robot (single robot) and list_categories.

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's function but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like compare_robots or get_robot. It implies usage via search but lacks when-not-to-use or trade-offs.

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