Create a grading suite with test cases on an agent. Each case has an input prompt and expected behavior for evaluation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Suite name (optional) | |
| cases | Yes | Test cases | |
| agent_id | Yes | The agent ID or name | |
| description | No | Suite description (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and description aligns as a create operation. However, description adds no extra side effects or behavioral details beyond the obvious creation.
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, front-loaded with the action.
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 core purpose and cases structure, but omits return value and any usage prerequisites. Since no output schema exists, some expectation of return info would help.
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?
All 4 params have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds little new. It summarizes cases but the schema already documents each field.
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 'Create a grading suite with test cases on an agent' – a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like run_grading and get_grading_results by focusing on creation.
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 on when to use vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or relationship to run_grading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (create vs list vs get vs run vs connect). A few potential overlaps exist (deploy_template vs create_agent, import_agent vs create_agent, grade_prompt vs run_grading) but descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools share the 'kopern_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, list_*, run_*, connect_*). The exception is 'kopern_compliance_report', which uses a noun phrase without a verb, breaking the otherwise consistent naming.
With 31 tools, this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for well-scoped servers. While the domain is broad (agent lifecycle, grading, pipelines, teams, connectors), the sheer number of tools feels heavy and could be consolidated (e.g., a single 'manage_memory' tool already bundles multiple actions).
Core agent management (create, read, update, delete, list) is solid, and grading has suite creation, execution, and results. However, pipelines and teams lack get/update/delete operations, connectors only support connect (no disconnect), and there's no way to manage grading suites beyond creation and running. This leaves notable gaps for secondary resources.
