Thruact

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing, failover behavior, and the route field's content (scoring, rejection reasons, missing credentials). It lacks detail on side effects, cost guarantees beyond max_cost_usd, or response structure, but the disclosed behavior is 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, routing/failover behavior, and route semantics with zero filler. Key behavioral details are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the route field but omits the input/capability format, hedge semantics, and what output besides route is returned. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without additional inference.

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 60% (only prefer and max_cost_usd have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level details for capability, input, or hedge. The core capability argument is undefined, and input is an undocumented nested object, requiring the agent to guess their structure.

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?

'Run a capability' is a specific verb+resource and the routing/failover behavior distinguishes it from siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify how it differs from thruact_call.

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 when a capability needs execution with failover, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention related tools like thruact_compare or thruact_proxy.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only one behavioral trait: 'No failover.' It does not mention possible side effects, whether the tool can invoke arbitrary actions, how invalid tool ids are handled, or whether this is a read-only operation or can mutate state.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'Run one specific tool by id. No failover.' Both clauses carry meaning and there is no wasted text. However, the phrasing is so compressed that some clarity is sacrificed, especially around 'tool by id.'

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 generic tool dispatcher with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form params object, two sentences are insufficient. The agent does not learn what params contains, what the return value is, what happens on unknown ids, or whether running a tool can have side effects. The missing information is essential for safe 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, but it only clarifies that 'tool' is an id. It does not explain that 'params' is an object passed into the selected tool, what keys it should contain, or how it interacts with the tool. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Run one specific tool by id.' It communicates that this tool executes one named tool rather than performing some broader orchestration. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the 'one specific tool by id' framing is distinctive enough for basic selection.

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 about when to use thruact_call versus any sibling like thruact_act or thruact_proxy. 'No failover' hints at a selection criterion, but the description never names alternatives or explains when failover would be available. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: every provider called is paid, and it costs more than act. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for this tool the cost warning is the most important behavioral trait.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: main behavior first, then usage guidance, then cost tradeoff. 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?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and cost, but leaves capability and input unexplained. An agent would still need additional context to construct a correct call.

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 only 33% (providers is documented, but capability and input are not). The description does not explain what capability values are valid, what should go into the input object, or how the providers count relates to available providers. It adds no parameter-level meaning 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 verb and resource: ask every provider behind a capability the same question and report divergences. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings by the comparison scope, and it even names act as the cheaper alternative.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the answer matters enough to want corroboration. It also names act as the cheaper alternative, implying when not to use this tool.

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 must carry behavioral weight. It reveals that results include prices and measured reliability and implies a non-mutating search operation. However, it does not describe output structure, edge cases, or whether any side effects exist beyond the 'search' framing.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and result attributes are front-loaded, and the workflow hint 'Search first, execute second' earns its place by guiding correct usage.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is largely adequate to invoke correctly. It could be more complete by describing the result format or clarifying what 'measured reliability' means, but the essentials are present.

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. The description maps the job concept to the query parameter but adds no extra syntax, format, or boundary information beyond what the schema already provides for query and limit.

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 a specific action ('Find capabilities for a job'), names the resource ('capabilities'), and adds distinctive result attributes ('prices and measured reliability'). The phrase 'Search first, execute second' also separates this discovery tool from execution siblings like thruact_act and thruact_call.

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 a clear workflow signal: search first, execute second. This tells an agent to use this tool before acting, which distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the time window and aggregation level, but does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it queries live or cached data, what reliability means, or what the response contains. For an unannotated tool this is a notable gap.

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: it names the metric, the grouping, and the time window. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity leaves surrounding context to be supplied elsewhere.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context unstated: what values capability should take, how the result is presented, and how this tool relates to its siblings. An agent could guess, but the definition does not give enough to call it with confidence.

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 only parameter 'capability' has no schema description, no enum, and 0% documentation coverage; the description's 'per tool' phrasing hints that capability names a tool but gives no format, accepted values, or example. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema semantics.

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 the resource (tool reliability) and the scope (last 7 days, per tool), which distinguishes it in subject matter from siblings like thruact_act or thruact_call. However, it lacks an explicit present-tense verb such as 'returns' or 'lists,' and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance about when to choose thruact_iq over thruact_compare or thruact_discover, and no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that requests are authenticated, the API key is injected server-side and never exposed, and that calls are metered. It does not discuss response shape or side effects, but the key-handling and cost transparency are meaningful and go beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then security, then required inputs, then usage scope, then cost. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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 description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, how authentication is handled, what inputs to give, when to use it, and that it is metered. Since there is no output schema, return behavior is not documented, but for a generic pass-through proxy the vendor-specific response is hard to generalize. A brief note about returning the vendor's response would improve 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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful examples for vendor ('openai, sendgrid') and clarifies that path is on the vendor's own API, but it does not explain the default behavior when the optional method is omitted. Overall it reinforces rather than substantially extends 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send an authenticated request to a third-party vendor the workspace has connected.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating it is for vendors that are 'not a Thruact capability,' so an agent understands what this tool uniquely does.

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 a clear use condition: use it when acting through a connected vendor that is not a Thruact capability. It also adds a cost signal, 'Metered per call.' It does not explicitly name which sibling tools to use for Thruact capabilities, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Prepaid balance and recent charges' hints at a read-only info operation, but it does not explicitly state that calling it has no side effects, nor does it describe return format, freshness, or any other behavioral details.

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 extremely brief and contains no filler or redundant detail. It is slightly under-specified as a sentence fragment, but for a simple zero-parameter tool it is compact and reasonably front-loaded.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description names the two relevant data concepts: prepaid balance and recent charges. However, it does not explicitly state that these are returned values, and it provides no detail about the charges or how the data is presented, leaving the agent partially in the dark.

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 zero parameters and the description needs to compensate for nothing. The phrase 'prepaid balance and recent charges' gives the agent a general sense of what the no-argument call will return, which is appropriate for a parameterless wallet query.

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 (wallet) and the data it exposes (prepaid balance and recent charges), but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get', 'list', or 'retrieve'. It is more of a label than a statement of what the tool does, and it does not actively distinguish itself from the sibling tools.

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 the tool is for viewing wallet balance and charges but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like thruact_act, thruact_call, or thruact_compare. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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