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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds critical behavioral context: the action is irreversible and releases escrowed funds. However, it omits details like required permissions or task state prerequisites.

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 concise with two succinct sentences. Every word adds value, and the critical warning about irreversibility is 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and key behavioral traits (irreversible, fund release). It could mention state requirements, but overall it is adequately 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 coverage is 100% and already describes taskId as 'The task ID to approve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Approve a submitted task, release escrowed funds to the worker.' The verb 'approve' and resource 'task' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_task and dispute_task.

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 on when to use approve_task versus alternatives like cancel_task or dispute_task. The description lacks explicit context for proper usage scenarios.

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 must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the core action (cancelling) and a key side effect (refund of escrowed funds), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or other potential traits like idempotency.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and result, and the second adds an important constraint. Extremely concise and effective.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key constraint. It lacks details on outcomes (e.g., immediate refund, permanence) but is adequate for basic use.

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 the single parameter 'taskId'. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only restates that the task must be open.

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 ('Cancel an open task') and the resource ('open task'), and distinguishes it by specifying what it cannot do ('Cannot cancel claimed or submitted tasks'), differentiating it from siblings like approve_task or dispute_task.

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 clear context that the tool is for open tasks only and excludes claimed or submitted tasks, giving an implicit when-to-use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded states.

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 fully discloses that the webhookSecret is shown only once and must be stored immediately, and that signatures use HMAC-SHA256. It doesn't mention if updating replaces the existing webhook, which is a minor 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 concise: two sentences plus an important warning in a separate sentence. No unnecessary words, and the critical information about the secret is highlighted.

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, the description covers purpose, events, secret handling, and protocol. It is self-contained and provides enough information for correct usage.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: 'Your public HTTPS endpoint to receive POST webhook events. Must be reachable from the internet.' This clarifies the requirement beyond the schema's format.

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 'Register or update a webhook URL to receive real-time task event notifications' and lists specific event types, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on webhook configuration, while siblings are about tasks, approvals, 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?

The description implies when to use: to receive notifications for task events. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but there are no sibling webhook tools. The warning about the secret being shown once adds important usage context.

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 must carry the burden. It discloses that funds are automatically escrowed, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior. The escrow note adds value 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information (purpose and automatic escrow) is front-loaded. 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?

Despite 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It only covers escrow. Important context like what happens after creation, how to verify success, or error handling is missing. The schema covers parameters but description lacks operational 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It neither repeats nor contradicts 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 action ('Post a new task') and the resource ('GetterDone marketplace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like approve_task, cancel_task, etc. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for creating new tasks, and the context of sibling tools makes it clear. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent.

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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds that 'the worker will be notified and may contest,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose other side effects (e.g., task status changes, impact on funds, reversal possibilities) or required permissions. The description adds moderate value 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 concise: two sentences, no superfluous words, front-loaded with the core action. 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 simple tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key behavioral effect. However, it could provide more context on the dispute process (e.g., is the task paused? Is there a time limit for contest?). Some gaps remain, but it is moderately complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Dispute a submitted task's proof-of-work.' This uses a specific verb (dispute) and resource (submitted task's proof-of-work), and mentions the consequence (worker notified and may contest). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_task and cancel_task.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies dispute is for insufficient proof-of-work, but does not contrast with approve_task, cancel_task, or other actions. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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 that the server auto-finds the active token and that the amount must not exceed a token limit. However, it does not mention what happens on failure, whether the action is reversible, or the result of a successful 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key usage note. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic functionality. However, it omits the success behavior (e.g., balance update) and error conditions, which would help an agent anticipate outcomes. The schema fills in parameter details, but the overall completion is adequate but not thorough.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal extra value beyond reiterating that the token parameter should be omitted. It does not provide additional context about parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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's purpose: 'Add funds to the agent's wallet.' It also specifies the unique behavior of server auto-resolving the funding token, distinguishing it from any 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 instructs users to 'Just pass the amount' and to omit the optional token parameter, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No sibling tool performs a similar function, so the guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 discloses that the tool returns data for the user's own agent account and lists the output fields (balance, task counts, spend, reputation, ratings). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a dashboard implies it is a safe read operation, which is sufficient for transparency.

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 composed of two tightly written sentences. The first sentence lists all key outputs, and the second provides usage guidance and an alternative. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (balance, task counts by status, spend, reputation, ratings) and provides usage context. The tool has no parameters and simple behavior, so the description is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 input schema has no parameters, so the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns without needing parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description effectively compensates by detailing the output, which aids understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'full performance dashboard' listing specific account metrics, which clearly identifies the purpose. It differentiates from sibling tool 'get_reputation' by specifying the scope (own agent vs. any agent) and level of detail.

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 tells when to use this tool ('operational reporting or when a user asks for an account summary') and when not to, by directing to 'get_reputation' for quick reliability checks on any agent. This provides strong guidance for an AI agent to select correctly.

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 discloses the return structure ({ balance, pendingEscrow, currency }) and implies read-only nature. Could explicitly state no side effects, but still strong.

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 wasted words: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third shows return format. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Completely sufficient for a parameterless tool. Covers purpose, usage context, and return format. No output schema needed.

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?

No parameters present (schema coverage 100%). Description adds value by detailing the return object, which is inherent to the tool's purpose. Baseline 4 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 clearly states it gets the agent's wallet balance and pending escrow, using specific verb 'Get' and distinct resource. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning when to call it before create_task or fund_account.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before create_task to verify sufficient funds and before fund_account to avoid over-funding. Provides clear context and exclusions.

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?

Discloses critical behaviors: the 24-hour auto-approval deadline, the syntactic-only nature of criteriaCheckResult, and the asynchronous generation of imageAuthenticityResult. No annotations exist, so description fully handles transparency.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and visual flags (⚠️). Somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds informational value. Front-loaded with purpose and use-case.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns, how to interpret the fields, the review deadline, and follow-up actions for incomplete data. Despite no output schema, the description is comprehensive.

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?

No parameters exist, so description does not need to explain them. It adds value by detailing the returned fields, which compensates for lack of output schema. Baseline for zero parameters 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?

Clearly states the tool fetches all submitted tasks awaiting approval, distinguishing it from list_tasks by noting it returns fully hydrated tasks without needing follow-up calls.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool over list_tasks in a polling loop, and provides guidance on handling missing imageAuthenticityResult with a wait and get_task call.

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 bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state lack of side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It adequately describes the output but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and one for usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and when to prefer the sibling tool. It is complete given the low complexity.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds valuable context: omitting the parameter returns the user's own reputation. This meaningfully extends the schema's description.

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 provides a quick reputation snapshot including specific metrics (reliability tier, dispute rate, worker rating average). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_agent_metrics, which offers a full performance dashboard.

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 tells when to use this tool ('check your own standing or vet another agent') and when to use the alternative ('For your own full performance dashboard..., use get_agent_metrics instead').

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 adds that the response includes 'proof-of-work submissions and dispute history', but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. Acceptable 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?

Single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. No unnecessary words or redundant 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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does and what extra details are included. Could briefly mention that it returns all fields, but not required.

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 has one parameter with description 'The unique task ID'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Tool description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'task', and specifies scope 'full details including proof-of-work submissions and dispute history'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (list summary) and approve_task (action).

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 from context: retrieve full details of a single task. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., list_tasks for summaries) or when not to use. Lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements.

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 implies a read-only retrieval but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or potential latency. Adequate but could benefit from additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose then usage. No filler; 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?

Lists key fields included in the profile, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention if the response might be paginated or if there are any restrictions.

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 a description for the single parameter. The description adds value by specifying where to find the workerId ('found in task.workerId'), going beyond the schema placeholder.

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 'Get a worker's public profile' and enumerates specific fields like trust tier, star rating, and task completion stats. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on task operations or other actions.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to vet a worker before assigning high-value tasks.' While it doesn't list exclusions, the context is clear and no alternatives are needed given the sibling tools.

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 discloses filtering, search, and limit behavior. While it doesn't mention side effects (none expected as read-only), it could state that it is safe and non-destructive. Still, the provided info is sufficient for safe invocation.

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. Front-loaded with key purpose, then usage guidance. 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?

No output schema, so description should describe return format. It only hints at 'task progress' but doesn't specify fields returned (e.g., id, status, title). For a list tool, this omission makes it slightly incomplete. However, sibling tools like get_task might fill in, so it's passable.

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%, but description adds value by explaining the use cases for each status value and the nature of the q parameter (case-insensitive substring search). This goes beyond the schema's dry 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?

The description states 'List this agent's tasks, filtered by status' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_pending_reviews and get_task, showing when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use status='open'/'claimed' for monitoring, prefer get_pending_reviews for proof review queue, and call get_task for full details. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rating action and the 24-hour constraint but does not specify whether ratings can be updated, if they are anonymous, or what side effects occur (e.g., reputation impact). This is adequate but 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and constraint. Every word is informative, with no unnecessary content.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key time constraint. It is nearly complete, though it could optionally mention if ratings are mutable or if they affect reputation, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 schema already details all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific info beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'score' range is already documented). The mention of '1-5 star' is redundant with the schema's minimum/maximum.

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 (rating a worker), the scale (1-5 stars), timing (after task completion), and a critical constraint (24-hour window). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_task' or 'dispute_task' by focusing on feedback.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (after task completion) and a time limit (within 24 hours). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'dispute_task' or 'get_pending_reviews', though the context implies it is for completed, non-disputed tasks.

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 must carry the burden. It indicates the report goes to platform admins, but does not disclose behavior like confirmation, response time, or error handling. This is minimal but acceptable for a submission 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage context. Every word carries meaning with no fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 submission tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It could include what happens after submission, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it neither enhances nor detracts.

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 explicitly states the tool is for submitting bug reports, feature requests, or general observations to platform admins, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the action and audience. It is clear and specific.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('when you encounter an API inconsistency, unexpected behaviour, or have a suggestion'), but does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives. It is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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 burden. It discloses that files are stored privately, workers get time-limited download links, and the fileUrl parameter requires a public URL from which the server downloads. It does not cover error cases or authentication requirements, but the core behavior is well described.

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 4 sentences with no wasted words. Purpose, constraints, and parameter usage are presented upfront. 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 file upload tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, file type constraints, storage behavior, parameter choice, and task state requirement. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 description's value is in summarizing the exclusive choice between fileUrl and fileData+mimeType, and the task state requirement. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema's individual parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool uploads a reference file to a task, specifies allowed file types (image, PDF, short video), and explains worker access via time-limited download links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle tasks, approvals, and account operations.

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 explicit usage context: files are for assigned workers, tasks must be open or claimed, and there's a 5-attachment limit. It also clarifies the mutually exclusive fileUrl vs fileData+mimeType choice. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the constraints are clear.

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