Loading ToolBench
Add your description here
Two tools with basic definitions but significant gaps. 'add' has clear parameters with types and descriptions (integer inputs), meeting baseline schema requirements. 'get_name_and_image_of_flower' has no input parameters and a vague description (13 chars, below 20-char floor). Neither tool has documented output schemas, error handling guidance, or recovery paths. Naming is acceptable but descriptions lack context on WHEN to use tools or WHAT they return. No parameter constraints, no pagination, no error classification. Composition is reasonable (single responsibility), but overall quality falls short of production baseline.
Add two numbers.
Get the name and image of flower
get_name_and_image_of_flower description is 13 characters ('Get the name and image of flower'), below 20-char minimum. Lacks context on when to call, what it returns, or why an LLM would select it.
No output schemas documented for either tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract fields without knowing return structure. 'add' returns TextContent; 'get_name_and_image_of_flower' returns List[TextContent|ImageContent], neither is documented in tool metadata.
No error handling or recovery guidance. If 'add' receives non-integer input or 'get_name_and_image_of_flower' fails to load the image file, no actionable error message guides the LLM on next steps.
'add' description ('Add two numbers.') is 17 characters, below baseline 34-char p10. Lacks context on return type, use case, or when to prefer this over other operations.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 45 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Tool naming 'get_name_and_image_of_flower' contains 'and', signals multiple responsibilities (fetch name AND fetch image). Consider splitting into 'get_flower_name' and 'get_flower_image' for single-concern composition.