Loading ToolBench
Two tools with moderate naming and descriptions, but critical gaps in schema completeness and parameter documentation. chargebee_code_planner has a vague description that conflates multiple concerns (integration questions AND implementation AND code generation). chargebee_documentation_search has overly long, repetitive description (>300 chars) that reads like a constraint list rather than a clear purpose statement. Both tools lack documented output schemas, LLMs cannot plan downstream calls without knowing what fields to expect. Parameter descriptions are present but minimal (e.g., 'Programming language the code to be generated in' lacks format/constraint details). No error handling guidance visible. Schemas show basic type info but lack examples, constraints, or field-level documentation.
Use this tool for any Chargebee integration questions or implementation needs. Always use this tool to get the accurate integration code guide for Chargebee. This is the main tool developers need when asking about implementing Chargebee functionality (like "how to update billing address", "how to create subscription", "how to handle webhooks", etc.). This tool will take in parameters about integrating with Chargebee in their application and generates an integration workflow along with the code snippets. It takes the following arguments: - goal (string): What is the user's goal? - language (enum): Programming language the code to be generated in. Check the user's application language.
Only use this tool for general product documentation queries, NOT for implementation questions. Do not use this tool for code generation or implementation questions. For any developer questions about implementing Chargebee functionality (like "how to update billing address", "how to create subscription", etc.), use "chargebee_code_planner" tool instead. This tool should only be used for: - General product documentation queries about Chargebee's features and concepts - Understanding billing, payments, receivables, revenue recognition concepts - Learning about subscription management processes - Finding product feature explanations and overviews - Non-implementation related documentation queries It takes the following arguments: - query (string): The user query to search an answer for in the Chargebee documentation. - language (enum): The programming language for the documentation. Check the user's application language. - userRequest (string): User's original request to you.
Output schemas not documented. LLMs cannot infer what fields the tools return, forcing them to guess or make wasteful follow-up calls.
chargebee_code_planner description is ambiguous and conflates multiple concerns ('integration questions', 'implementation needs', 'code generation'). Unclear when to use vs chargebee_documentation_search.
chargebee_documentation_search description is 300+ chars, repetitive, and reads as a constraint list ('Only use this tool for...', 'Do not use this tool for...') rather than a clear value statement. Wastes tokens and buries intent.
Parameter 'language' enum is optional but no default specified. Unclear what happens if omitted, does the tool auto-detect, fail, or return all languages?
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 40 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No error handling guidance visible. If API fails, returns invalid language, or finds no results, LLM has no recovery path.