Humanity Commons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the important non-overwrite behavior and that the target record must already exist. But it omits permission requirements, validation behavior, error handling, and what happens if the target record is not found.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately states the critical non-destructive guarantee. No filler or 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 is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool and covers the main non-overwrite behavior. Yet with no output schema, no annotations, and an underspecified nested record object, an agent still lacks important details about return values, validation, and failure modes.

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 partially does: 'critique' clarifies that the record object is the critique content, and 'existing record' clarifies target_id. However, it does not specify the required structure of the nested record object or the expected format of target_id.

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 ('Publish'), names the resource ('a critique referencing an existing record'), and adds a key differentiator ('without overwriting it'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like submit_record or get_record.

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 'referencing an existing record' implies the intended use case, and 'without overwriting it' implies a non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over submit_record or verify_record, nor does it name 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 are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a high-level purpose and does not mention read-only safety, response format, pagination, or any side effects, though 'Discover' weakly implies a read 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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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), and the description conveys the general purpose, but it lacks explicit behavioral context and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully documents the call surface. The description has nothing to add about parameter meaning, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 the verb 'Discover' with a specific resource, 'Humanity Commons endpoints and protocol metadata,' making it clear this is a metadata/endpoint discovery operation rather than a record operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs endpoints or protocol metadata for Humanity Commons. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named, but the resource scope makes the intended context reasonably 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, and 'including signature verification status' adds a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing ids, error cases, or side effects, leaving some uncertainty for a tool without annotations.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It states what is retrieved, including verification status, but does not describe the response structure, error semantics, or how this tool relates to verify_record specifically. This is sufficient for a minimal get-by-id tool but leaves notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw schema. It does indicate that the id parameter identifies the record, but this is largely redundant with the parameter name and the tool name. No additional detail is provided about id format, examples, or accepted values.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('a record'), and key ('by id'), which distinguishes it from list_records. The phrase 'including signature verification status' adds useful scope, though it could more explicitly differentiate from verify_record.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use get_record versus sibling tools such as verify_record or list_records. The verification status mention implies overlap with verify_record, but the description does not clarify which tool should be chosen for which scenario.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation and notes that records are public, but it does not explain pagination behavior, default limits, response shape, or whether filtering is supported beyond the parameter names.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits useful operational guidance, so it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 0% schema coverage, three parameters, no output schema, and the existence of a similar sibling 'discover', the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or how this listing tool compares to discovery-oriented siblings.

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 tool description does not explain 'tag', 'type', or 'limit'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory—especially 'limit'—but the description adds no value about valid values, how filters combine, or what the parameters mean in the context of Humanity Commons records.

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 a specific action ('List') and a resource ('public Humanity Commons records'), so an agent knows the tool returns a collection rather than a single record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'discover', but it is clearly distinct from 'get_record'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover' or 'get_record'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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 usefully reveals that records are append-only and that signed records are verified before acceptance, which are non-obvious and important side-effect/validation traits. It stops short of explaining what happens to unsigned or invalid records, but it still provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the generic act of submitting.

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, no fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. Every clause adds information: append-only semantics in the first sentence, verification behavior in the second. This is an efficient and well-structured description.

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 opaque single object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not define the record structure, signature requirements, failure behavior, or return value. An agent could know why to call the tool but not how to construct a valid 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?

The schema provides only a parameter name and type ('record' as an object) with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'knowledge record' and the mention of signed records give only a weak hint about the payload shape. An agent still does not know what fields, signing format, or structure the record must have, leaving the most important invocation detail unresolved.

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 ('Submit') with a distinct resource ('append-only knowledge record'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_record, list_records, verify_record, and critique_record by being the only obvious write/creation operation. No ambiguity remains about what this tool 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 behavior is implied: use this tool when you want to add a new record to the knowledge store. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over verify_record or critique_record, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is adequate but relies on inference from the tool name and siblings.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not explain whether the call is read-only, what it returns, or what happens if the record or signature is absent. 'When present' is ambiguous and under-specified.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 with one parameter and no nested objects, so the description is close to adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without information about return values, success/failure signaling, or behavior when a signature is not present. This is a moderate gap for an otherwise low-complexity 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?

The schema contains only a required string id with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds only minimal context by tying the id to 'a stored record,' but it does not explain how to obtain the id, its format, or edge-case semantics. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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: 'Verify the Ed25519 signature of a stored record.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_record, submit_record, and critique_record, none of which are about signature verification. The qualifier 'when present' further scopes the operation.

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 provided about when to choose verify_record over its siblings, or when not to use it. The phrase 'when present' hints at a conditional, but it does not explain decision criteria or mention alternatives such as get_record or list_records.

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