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 explicitly states the operation is read-only, reads no private data, and installs nothing, which is strong transparency for a tool of this nature. It also reveals that the manifest includes an 'honest reason' for each status, setting accurate expectations about the output.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in essential safety and content details without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's behavior.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the capabilities covered, the possible statuses, and the safety guarantees. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 even without additional parameter information. The description still adds useful semantic context by explaining what the manifest contains and the meaning of the status values, though it does not need to explain any parameter details since there are none.

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 ('Report') and a specific resource ('local capability manifest'), then enumerates exactly which capabilities are covered (remember, reflect, message, call) and the possible status values. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, which are about starting, initializing, messaging, and status rather than reporting capabilities.

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 clearly implies this tool is for inspecting runtime capabilities before choosing operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. An agent can infer the usage context, but there is no direct guidance about when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate.

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 delivery semantics (immediate or queued), exactly what gets sent, and that /vibe does not attach repo/session context. This is valuable transparency that goes beyond the schema, though it omits details on errors or response format.

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 economical: four sentences that front-load the core purpose before explaining parameters. No superfluous text; every sentence adds 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the most critical behavioral aspects (delivery, exact text, no context) and enriches the origin parameter. Minor gaps remain around payload usage and error/return behavior, but the schema covers parameter meaning adequately.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'origin' parameter (explaining how to pass values from drafting tools) and clarifies that the message is sent verbatim. This goes beyond the schema's brief 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?

States a specific verb (send), a specific resource (direct message on /vibe), and clarifies behavior (exact text, no context auto-attached). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on status, inbox, help, etc.

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 delivery behavior (now or next turn) and notes it sends exactly the given text, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no alternative guidance or exclusion, though the context makes the primary use case evident.

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 says 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state that no side effects occur or describe the return format. For a help tool, the intent is clear, but it could benefit from explicitly stating that it only retrieves information.

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 waste. It states the action and object directly, making it easy for an agent to parse. There is no redundant wording or 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the schema covers the parameter. It might benefit from a note on what the output looks like (e.g., a text guide), but the phrase 'show available /vibe commands' implies the content. Overall, the information is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in most cases.

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 single parameter 'topic' is fully described in the schema with a list of allowed values (commands, getting-started, troubleshooting). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description isn't required to add parameter details, and it doesn't. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('available /vibe commands and quick start guide'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibe_status or vibe_dm. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, leaving a small gap below a perfect score.

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 for discovering commands and getting started, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. For instance, it doesn't say 'Use this when you need command reference; use vibe_status for health checks.' The context is implied by the name and wording, but not made 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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It states it reads unread messages and threads and can open a full conversation, covering basic functionality. However, it does not state that it is read-only (no mutation), mention any authentication or scope requirements, or describe what 'full' means in output volume. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior of the handle is stated clearly. Every word 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is suitably complete: it tells the agent what will be returned (threads) and how to drill into a conversation. Minor gaps (e.g., pagination, definition of 'recent') exist but are not critical for basic 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 input schema fully describes the handle parameter (optional, open conversation, omit to list threads), and the description repeats this information almost verbatim. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clear verb-resource pairing: 'see your unread messages and recent threads' and explains the optional handle parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vibe_dm or vibe_status, but the resource scope (unread messages/threads) is distinct enough to be understood.

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 (list threads or open a specific conversation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It never mentions sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent here instead of vibe_dm.

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 providing a safety profile, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it returns immediately, never waits, may open a browser only locally, never over SSH/headless, and completes auth in background. This is unusually explicit about side effects and asynchronous 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?

Two information-dense sentences front-load the action and no-input expectation, then cover return behavior, browser behavior, and the handoff to vibe_start. Every clause carries operational value with 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key facts an agent needs: return state, login URL, relay message, timing, and follow-up behavior. Optional parameters are covered by the complete input schema, so 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters. The description adds the useful emphasis that no input is needed and that the GitHub username is the default handle, but this is largely restating the schema's own descriptions rather than adding 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 states a specific action ('Sign in to /vibe with GitHub') and resource, explains the immediate outcome, and distinguishes itself from the sibling flow by noting that the next 'vibe start' recognizes the completed sign-in. No ambiguity about what the 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?

It clearly frames this as an auth-initiation step and references the follow-up tool ('the next vibe start recognizes it'), showing when it fits in the workflow. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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. It merely says 'Start socializing' without explaining side effects, whether it requires prior initialization (though the schema hints at this), what the tool does to the system, or what the user experiences. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 sentences with zero waste. Trigger phrases are front-loaded, and it is easy to scan quickly. Every word serves a 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the initialization requirement, what happens after the call, and how it relates to sibling tools. It only covers the trigger context, leaving significant gaps about preconditions and effects.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 action ('Start socializing on /vibe') and provides concrete trigger phrases ('let's vibe', 'start vibing') that map to user intents. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like vibe_init (initialization) and vibe_who (checking who's around) by focusing on the act of starting a social session.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool with example user statements, giving clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, leaving some ambiguity with sibling tools like vibe_who that might also handle 'who's around' queries.

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. It discloses the behavioral consequences of pace values (when pings occur, push notifications) and notes the message is only for away mood (also in schema). However, it does not mention persistence, visibility to others, or whether setting a mood overwrites existing status, which are relevant but not critical for a basic call.

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 that front-loads the action and then efficiently lists all value options. No wasted words, and the structure supports quick scanning.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient detail to call it correctly: it explains mood vs pace, the effect of pace, and the message constraint is in the schema. Minor omissions like side effects or persistence do not impair a correct first 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of each pace option (e.g., 'slow only pings when away', 'quiet no pushes'), which goes beyond the schema's list of values and helps the agent choose appropriately.

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 clear verb ('Set') and resource ('your mood/status, or your notification pace'), and enumerates the specific values for both. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibe_dm (messaging) or vibe_inbox (reading messages) by focusing on self-status management.

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 two modes (mood vs pace) and their effects (e.g., 'slower only ping when away', 'quiet no pushes'), which provides internal usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the selection largely implicit.

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. It states the action (setting a token) but does not disclose whether it overwrites an existing token, persists across sessions, or validates the token. It is not misleading, but lacks depth on side effects or state changes.

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 with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage context follows. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is adequate. It covers the action and the required prerequisite (OAuth). It does not explain potential errors or token persistence, but these are minor for a simple setter. It is complete enough for an agent to call 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 schema already fully describes the parameter 'token' with 100% coverage. The description simply repeats it ('Set your auth token') without adding syntax, format, or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Set your auth token') and the resource (auth token). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like vibe_status or vibe_dm, none of which relate to authentication. A slight improvement could be explicitly naming that it is for authentication setup, but it is clear.

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 usage context: 'Use after completing GitHub OAuth in browser.' This tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple tool with no obvious 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'See' but does not explicitly state that it's non-destructive, nor does it mention any limitations like visibility scope or real-time behavior. For a simple zero-parameter tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 with zero fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description communicates the core value—seeing who is online and what they are building. It doesn't specify output format or ordering, but given the simplicity, it covers the essential information an agent needs.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing 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 ('See') and resource ('who's online and what they're building'), clearly identifying its function as a presence/activity viewer. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like vibe_status (own status) and vibe_dm (messaging) by focusing on others' activity, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as vibe_status or vibe_inbox. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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