Aegis Gov Contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a pure, side-effect-free operation that returns the sum, which fully covers the observable behavior for a simple arithmetic 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?

A single short sentence contains all necessary information with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and result.

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 tool with two scalar numeric parameters, no output schema, and no side effects, the description is fully sufficient. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool based solely on the provided text.

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 schema provides only parameter names and types with no descriptions, and the description does not explicitly name a and b. However, the phrase 'two numbers' plus the binary nature of addition reasonably implies that both parameters are operands, providing minimal but sufficient semantic context.

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 operation—adding two numbers—and the result it returns, the sum. This clearly identifies the tool's function and is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools echo and server_time.

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 makes the intended usage clear: use this tool whenever two numeric values need to be summed. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, none of the sibling tools are relevant to arithmetic, so no exclusionary guidance is necessary.

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 disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the input text is returned unchanged, which fully characterizes this simple read-style operation. It does not explicitly mention the absence of side effects, but the behavior is transparent enough for such a trivial 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 wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning: it names the action, the object, and the result.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what happens and what the caller receives, and the schema covers the only input. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the text parameter fully with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it echoes the provided text back to the caller. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add and server_time, which have entirely different purposes.

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 makes the tool's use case obvious: return the same text provided. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, there is no ambiguity requiring explicit alternatives or exclusionary guidance, though the description does not spell out when to prefer 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (ISO 8601) and timezone (UTC), which are the key behavioral details for a zero-parameter read-only tool. It does not mention potential caveats like precision or network dependency, but none are expected for this simple operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys everything needed. There is zero wasted text, and the key facts (server time, ISO 8601, UTC) are stated directly.

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 minimal: no parameters, no output schema, no annotations. The description fully specifies what an agent needs to know—what it returns and in what format—leaving no missing information for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information since there is none to document.

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 ('Returns'), a resource ('current server time'), and specifies the exact format ('ISO 8601, UTC'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like 'add' and 'echo'.

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 context is clear: the tool is for retrieving the current server time. No exclusions or alternative conditions are needed since the siblings are unrelated operations. It could explicitly state 'use when you need server time,' but the purpose is unambiguous.

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