Milanote by Cotlet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens on duplicate titles, where the column is placed, or what permissions are needed for this mutation.

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?

It is a single short clause with no wasted words, but it leads with a static resource definition rather than the action, leaving the fragment under-specified rather than genuinely tight. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at least confirm creation behavior and any notable side effects. Annotations carry the safety flags, but nothing explains whether the new column is empty, appended at the end, or what the caller gets back.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (board_id, title) are already documented in the schema, including that board_id can come from list_boards or a board URL. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun fragment ('Empty column on a board, to group cards in a stack') that defines what a column is but never states the action of adding one, effectively restating the tool name/title. It tells the agent the target resource but not the operation, so distinguishing it from siblings relies on the name alone.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus create_board, add_label, or other siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing board via list_boards) are mentioned. The board_id schema hint does point to list_boards, but the description itself offers no guidance.

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?

Adds real context beyond the annotations: comments are attributed to the caller ('posted under your name') and are held pending owner approval, which explains the non-immediate, non-idempotent nature of the call. It doesn't clarify why destructiveHint is true or what happens on rejection, but the approval workflow is a meaningful disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the dual-mode purpose is front-loaded and the approval caveat follows immediately.

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 a mutation tool flagged destructive with no output schema, the description should say what the caller gets back (a pending comment ID?) and whether the comment is visible before approval. The approval statement is a good start but leaves the post-call state ambiguous.

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 all three parameters including reply_to_id's default behavior are already documented. The description's mention of 'reply in a comment thread' reinforces reply_to_id's purpose but adds no new format or constraint detail.

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+resource ('Comment card on a board, or a reply in a comment thread'), covering both creation modes the schema allows. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling write tools like add_note or edit_comment, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the two usage modes (new comment card vs. reply) but never states when to choose this over add_note or edit_comment. The only explicit guidance is the approval wait, which is a behavioral note rather than a routing rule.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the upsert side effect (label is created if the name is new), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't explain the destructive aspect, permission requirements, or what happens when the label already exists on the card.

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 filler that conveys both the action and its conditional side effect.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core action adequately. It leaves open re-application behavior, failure modes, and whether a label object is returned, which an agent would want to know given there is no output schema.

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 schema descriptions already explain that an unused label name creates the label and where board_id/card_id come from. The description only restates the label-creation semantics, adding no new parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (put a label on a card) and adds the key behavioral nuance that a new name creates the label. It's immediately distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like list_labels, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_labels for inspecting existing labels. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior — the title and preview are fetched from the page and the card lands in Unsorted — but says nothing about what happens on duplicate URLs or what is returned, so it adds moderate value only.

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 compact sentence with the artifact and destination front-loaded and no wasted words. It is slightly terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a complete statement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could say what is returned (e.g. the created card or its ID) and how failures like an unreachable URL behave. With complete parameter docs and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but leaves real gaps for a create tool.

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 url (http/https required) and board_id (from list_boards or board URL) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail and its 'added to Unsorted' phrasing sits awkwardly against the required board_id, offering no clarification of that relationship.

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 names the concrete artifact created (a link card with the page's title and preview) and its destination (Unsorted), which distinguishes it from add_note or add_column. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, but the create action is 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?

Usage is only implied: it is the tool for saving a web address as a card. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as add_note for non-URL content or how this relates to upload_image.

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?

The annotations already declare the operation as non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful context about the destination panel and plain-text nature, but it does not explain destructive implications, permissions, or what happens to existing board content. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words and the destination is front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate for a low-complexity add operation, though it leaves it under-specified rather than overlong.

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 two required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations that disclose the destructive/non-idempotent behavior, the definition is minimally complete. It still lacks usage context and does not clarify post-add behavior or restrictions, leaving clear but non-critical gaps.

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%, and the schema explains both parameters, including that board_id comes from list_boards or a board URL and that each text line becomes a paragraph. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (note card) and destination (board's Unsorted panel), making the effect clear. It stops short of explicitly differentiating this from edit_note or other add_* siblings, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 implies that this tool creates a plain-text note card in the Unsorted panel but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of edit_note, add_comment, add_todo_list, or other sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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?

Annotations already disclose the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: the card is placed in the Unsorted column with no column choice available. It says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or what is returned.

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 no filler; 'To-do list card' mildly echoes the title but the rest earns its place by specifying task contents and placement.

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?

With no output schema, the agent is left guessing whether the new card ID or URL is returned, which matters for follow-up operations like set_task_done. Given a fully documented 3-parameter schema and rich annotations, this is the main remaining gap.

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 documents text, due_date, due_time format, title default, and board_id sourcing. The description only restates that due date/time are optional and adds the implicit no-column-parameter fact, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete artifact being created (a to-do list card containing tasks with optional due date/time) and where it lands (Unsorted), which separates it from siblings like add_note, add_column, and add_comment. The verb is only implied by 'added to', so it is clear but not as crisp as an explicit 'Creates...'.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over alternatives such as add_note or add_column, and no preconditions surfaced (board must exist, board_id sourced from list_boards). Usage is only inferable from the resource type.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: it is free, it requires the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in, and it enumerates the status fields returned. Auth and cost disclosure are exactly the kind of extra behavioral facts that earn credit here; transport/pagination is the only 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 return content is front-loaded in the first sentence, with cost and auth as short trailing clauses. It is dense but not padded; every clause (statuses, cost, auth) conveys distinct 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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately describes what comes back (per-app access and browser-account state plus the required user step and console link) and states auth needs. The missing piece is any pointer to the related request/browser tools, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single optional 'app' filter, the schema carries parameter meaning. The description never references the filter, so it adds nothing over the structured field; baseline 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 resource (the apps in the user's workspace) and what is reported per app: access status, Cloud Browser account state, and next step. It does not name or distinguish itself from the closest sibling, cotlet_request_apps, so an agent must infer which one to call when it wants to request access.

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?

'Free. Needs the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in.' gives a prerequisite but not a when-to-use rule. There is no explicit routing to cotlet_request_apps (for requesting an app) or to the cotlet_browser_* tools (for acting once an app is connected), so usage is only implied.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious context beyond them: that the call costs nothing ('Free') and that authentication is required, which are genuine behavioral facts an agent needs.

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 short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no padding. The 'Free.' fragment is terse but conveys a meaningful fact efficiently.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, what it costs, and what auth it needs. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., currency/format of the balance), which is acceptable at this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify and it does not attempt to misdescribe inputs.

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 the specific resource returned: the user's current credit balance. The verb ('get'/'retrieve') is implied rather than stated, and it doesn't differentiate from cotlet_whoami or other cotlet_* account tools by name, but the resource is 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?

'Free' signals there is no cost/credit consumption to calling it, and the auth prerequisite ('needs the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in') tells the agent what is required before calling. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance, leaving usage implied.

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?

Beyond the destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent annotations, it discloses that the tool acts as the user on the site, that certain action classes (payment, account/sign-in) are blocked, what is returned after the click, and the billing model with a 3-minute idle expiry. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: action, side-effect return, refusal policy, and cost/lifetime. The final sentence packs two distinct facts (credit cost and 3-minute idle expiry) into one long clause, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return value (URL and title), the side-effect profile, refusal conditions, and the session/cost lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description's 'by its number in the page's element list' merely restates the schema text. No extra guidance on how to obtain valid element numbers, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (clicks) and resource (a link, button or other element of the current page in the user's browser) plus the addressing mechanism (its number in the element list) and the return (URL and title). This clearly separates it from siblings like cotlet_browser_press, cotlet_browser_type, cotlet_browser_select and cotlet_browser_navigate without needing to name them.

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?

Gives explicit exclusion rules: pay/buy buttons and buttons on account or sign-in pages are refused, which tells the agent when this call will fail. It also frames the cost/session lifecycle (credits per started minute, session ends 3 minutes after the last call), but it never explicitly routes the agent among alternatives such as press vs select vs type for a given widget.

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?

Adds substantial detail beyond annotations: cookies are retained, the browser sleeps, billing stops, and the tool returns session minutes and credits. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false because no cookies or session history are described as destroyed.

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 that states the action, side effects, and return value without filler. Every clause contributes useful invocation context.

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 close tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains side effects and return values and aligns with the annotations. The only gap is the undefined `app` reference, which slightly undermines clarity.

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 has zero parameters and full coverage, which normally supports a baseline of 4. However, the description references `app` even though no such parameter exists in the input schema, creating a small ambiguity about how app scope is selected.

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 and resource: ending the browser session on Cotlet, with app-specific scope noted. This distinguishes it from siblings like cotlet_browser_open, cotlet_browser_connect, and cotlet_browser_sessions without needing their schemas.

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 it by explaining that the per-minute charge stops, but it does not explicitly contrast this with cotlet_browser_sessions or explain when not to close a session. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that only one tab exists, that new tabs are refused, that the user watches live, that credits accrue per started minute of an open connection, and that a Cotlet API key or sign-in is required. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before opening a metered, user-visible session, and nothing contradicts the declared hints.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then constraints, then cost and auth. Minor awkwardness in "It works in one open tab, the app's:" but no sentence is wasted.

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 return value, auth, cost, and tab restrictions, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. The gap is the missing link between "one app" and the zero-parameter schema: an agent is never told how the target app is chosen, nor that cotlet_browser_close should be called to stop the metered session.

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 takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies. The description adds the useful note that the browser is tied to "one app" and signed in as the user, which is context the empty schema cannot convey, though it never explains how that app is determined.

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?

A specific verb and resource ("Wakes the user's Cloud Browser") plus a concrete return value (cdp_url) makes the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from interaction siblings like cotlet_browser_click/navigate by saying it hands over a CDP WebSocket, but it never names the closest alternative (cotlet_browser_open) so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Gives a CDP client full control" implies the use case (you need raw CDP rather than the click/type/navigate helpers), and the auth/cost constraints hint at prerequisites. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus cotlet_browser_open or cotlet_browser_sessions, and no when-not-to-use guidance despite a crowded browser sibling family.

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?

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description is not obligated to repeat that. What it adds is genuinely useful and non-obvious: billing behavior (every started minute costs credits) and session lifetime (ends on close or 3 minutes after the last call), which no annotation conveys.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, the app-browser scoping rule, and the cost/session-lifetime caveat. No filler and the core action 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating it returns the resulting URL and title. Session termination and credit cost are covered. Only failure behavior (invalid URL, non-public address, cross-app access) and the distinction from cotlet_browser_open are left unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the url format and its app-browser meaning. The description restates the http/https constraint but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond 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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Opens a public http or https address in the user's browser on Cotlet") and notes the return value (final URL and title). It clarifies the app-scoped variant ("An app's browser opens only that app's pages"), though it never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling cotlet_browser_open, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage by constraining the address to public http/https and explaining the app-browser scope, but never states when to pick this over cotlet_browser_open, cotlet_browser_connect, or cotlet_browser_sessions. The agent must infer the routing from name similarity alone.

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?

The annotations only declare read-only, open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive. Beyond them, the description discloses that the user watches every step live, that every started minute costs credits, and that the session ends on close or three minutes after the last call. That billing and expiry model is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking the 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?

Four dense sentences with no filler, and the core identification of what is being opened comes first. The lifecycle/cost details are clustered at the end, which reads a bit run-on but is still well-ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately states that the page URL and title are returned, and it covers cost and session expiry. The remaining gaps are the error behavior and routing to related session tools.

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 single url parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description does explain the two browsing contexts (the user's signed-in browser versus an app's browser), but it refers to an `app` parameter that does not exist in the schema, which can confuse an agent about what it can pass.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it wakes the user's own hosted Chrome on Cotlet and opens a URL. That is clear and concrete. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like cotlet_browser_connect or cotlet_browser_navigate, which an agent must distinguish when starting a browsing 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 agent can infer that this is the entry point for starting a browsing session, and the closing sentence hints at session lifecycle. But there is no explicit 'use this when' versus connect/navigate, nor any guidance on whether to open the browser before calling click/type/read.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent) by disclosing a safety guardrail (Enter refused on account pages), the return payload (URL and title after the press), and the billing/session model (every started minute costs credits, session ends on close or 3 minutes after the last call). Those are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before deciding to act.

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 front-loaded sentences: action and scope first, key semantics second, then constraints and side effects. No filler, and the credit/session warning is placed after the operational content where it belongs.

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?

With one enum-constrained parameter and no output schema, the description still names the return value, the refusal case, and the session lifetime. Nothing material for correct invocation 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% with a fully enumerated key list, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by mapping keys to intents (Tab to next field, Enter to send, arrows for suggestion lists), which the bare enum does not convey.

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 and resource ('Presses one key on the current page in the user's browser on Cotlet') and scopes it to the focused element. The concrete key examples (Tab, Enter, Escape, arrows) separate it cleanly from cotlet_browser_type and cotlet_browser_select without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance per key ('Tab to the next field, Enter to send, Escape to close a dialog or pop-up') plus an explicit refusal rule ('Enter on account pages is refused'). It never explicitly says when to prefer cotlet_browser_type or cotlet_browser_select instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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?

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: limits (20,000 chars), exclusions (field values, cookies, storage), scroll-relative start on long pages, and cost model (credits per started minute, session ends after 3 minutes idle or on close). No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then limits, scroll behavior, and cost. Every sentence earns its place and no waste.

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, but the description fully explains return values (text, numbered list) and key operational details (size limits, exclusions, cost, session lifetime). Complete for a read tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameter semantics; it correctly focuses on return behavior and constraints instead.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('current page of the user's browser on Cotlet'), and enumerates what is returned (readable text, numbered list of links/buttons/fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling browser tools like screenshot or click.

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?

Implies usage (read the page's text and interactive elements), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many browser tools (e.g., screenshot, navigate). An agent must infer the appropriate 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?

Beyond the annotations (all of which it is consistent with), the description discloses two things an agent could not otherwise know: cost ('Every started minute of the session costs credits') and session lifecycle ('ends when closed or 3 minutes after the last call in that browser'). For a metered, session-bound tool this is exactly the right kind of added 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 dense sentences; the core output is front-loaded before the cost/lifecycle caveats. The colon-introduced list ('boards, canvases and layouts') is slightly awkward but each clause carries real information rather than restating the title.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the burden falls on the description, and it covers output form, cost, and timeout. It does not state prerequisites (an active browser session) or what happens when no browser is connected, which is the main remaining gap for a session-scoped tool.

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 zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are required — the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly adds nothing spurious about inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns a JPEG image of the visible part of the current page') and even flags the return payload as URL + title. The clause 'boards, canvases and layouts that the page text does not show' indirectly distinguishes it from cotlet_browser_read, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'that the page text does not show' gives a usable heuristic for choosing screenshots over the text-reading sibling. What is missing is an explicit instruction such as 'use cotlet_browser_read for text' or a note that a browser session must already be connected via cotlet_browser_open/connect.

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?

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the cost model ('every started minute of the session costs credits'), the session lifecycle ('ends when closed or 3 minutes after the last call'), the implicit lazy-load side effect, and the exact return payload (URL, title, at_top, at_bottom). These are operational facts an agent cannot get from readOnly/idempotent hints alone.

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?

One dense but front-loaded paragraph: mode enumeration first, then side effect/return, then billing. Every sentence carries information, though the billing clause is appended to a long sentence and could have been separated for scanability.

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 exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their meaning (at_top, at_bottom). Combined with the three-mode explanation and session-cost warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema does not, namely that `screens` describes distance for the down/up modes while `element` selects the scroll-until-visible mode. It restates the 0.8 default and the direction set, which is mildly redundant with 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Scrolls the current page in the user's browser') and enumerates the three distinct modes of operation (by screens, to top/bottom, until element). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like cotlet_browser_read or cotlet_browser_navigate without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'Content that loads on scroll appears, and the next read lists it' effectively tells the agent when to use this tool (to reach lazy-loaded content, then call cotlet_browser_read). It does not explicitly name a when-not condition or state that element-based scrolling supersedes the screens/direction parameters, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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?

Annotations only flag the operation as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the return payload (URL and title after selection), the refusal of card fields and account pages, and the credit/session economics including the 3-minute inactivity timeout. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before spending money and mutating page state.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and each following sentence carries distinct information (return values, refusals, billing). It is dense rather than wasteful, though the session-cost sentence is boilerplate that inflates the definition relative to the two-parameter operation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what is blocked, and the session lifecycle cost, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The one remaining gap is what happens on an unsuccessful match (error vs. silent no-op), which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning by clarifying that 'option' can be matched by the label as the list renders it or by its value, but it says nothing about partial matching, case sensitivity, or failure behavior for an unmatched label.

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 names a specific verb ('Chooses an option') and resource ('drop-down list on the current page') and scopes it to Cotlet's browser session, which cleanly separates it from navigation or screenshot siblings. It does not explicitly name the neighboring tools (click/type/read) that an agent might confuse with selection, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

'On the current page' establishes the precondition that a page must already be loaded, and 'Card fields and account pages are refused' gives an explicit when-not boundary. It stops short of a 5 because it never names the alternative action (e.g., use click or type when the element is not a select).

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?

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the authentication requirement, that costs and minutes are reported, that only still-valid cdp_url links are returned, and that closing revokes unused links. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 compact and front-loads the main behavior, with the close behavior following immediately. The phrase 'of one app or of all' is unnecessary and confusing given the one-parameter schema, but overall there is little waste.

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 low-complexity tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main return data and authentication. The unresolved 'one app or all' scope is a real gap because the schema cannot express app selection, leaving the agent unsure how to interpret that claim.

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 close parameter is already documented. The description adds that close=true ends connections and takes back unused links, but it also mentions 'of one app or of all' even though the schema exposes no app-targeting parameter, which creates ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 identifies the resource as Cloud Browser sessions and explains that it exposes cost, minutes, and valid cdp_url links, with an optional close behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cotlet_browser_close or cotlet_browser_connect, and the opening verb 'Open' is slightly ambiguous.

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 gives a useful condition for the close parameter ('With close: true') and states the authentication prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus cotlet_browser_close or other browser siblings, and the 'of one app or of all' scope is not actionable through the schema.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the return value (URL and title after typing), a security refusal policy for sensitive fields and sign-in pages, a credit cost per started minute, and session lifetime ('ends when closed or 3 minutes after the last call'). The mutation/destructive framing is consistent with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true.

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?

Front-loads the action and addressing scheme, then layers behaviour, refusals and cost in three tight clauses. The billing sentence is slightly off-topic for a typing tool but is genuinely useful context, so only a minor deduction.

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 destructive, open-world browser mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, how elements are addressed, the return value, safety refusals, and session/cost lifecycle — everything an agent needs to call it without surprises.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (`submit` presses Enter, element numbering from the page's element list). Baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no constraints or gotchas beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('types text into a field of the current page') plus the addressing scheme ('by the field's number in the page's element list'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like cotlet_browser_press, cotlet_browser_select and cotlet_browser_click.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context via the `submit` note ('presses Enter after typing, e.g. to search') and an explicit when-not: password, card, one-time code fields and sign-in pages are refused and left to the user. It does not name the sibling to use instead for keystrokes like Tab/Escape, so it stops just short of 5.

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?

Annotations already flag destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds real value on top: accepted file source shapes, the 10-file / 20 MB limits, the returned URL and title, and the per-minute credit cost with the 3-minute idle timeout. It does not say what happens on partial failure or whether existing field content is replaced, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, purpose and input shape front-loaded, with cost/session policy last. Every clause carries information, though the credit-and-timeout clause sits somewhat awkwardly in a tool-purpose description.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (URL and title), and it covers input forms and limits. The main gap is the missing reference to how a browser session must already exist and how this differs from cotlet_upload_file.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the url/file_id alternatives and the element-number meaning that the schema already documents, adding limits (10 files, 20 MB) but no genuinely new semantics such as how the element list is obtained or what happens if element is not a file input.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('puts files into a file field of the current page in the user's browser'), plus the targeting mechanism (element number). It distinguishes itself from generic upload behavior by naming the browser/session context, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling cotlet_upload_file, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 browser-session framing and the note that the session ends on close or 3 minutes after the last call imply when this tool fits, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of cotlet_upload_file when...' guidance, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing an open browser session from cotlet_browser_open/connect) are stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the status vocabulary and the polling context, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown or expired call_id, retention window, or whether repeated polling is rate-limited.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and key, with the status set inlined rather than padded into separate sentences. The trailing 'answered with status pending or running' is slightly awkward phrasing but earns its place as scoping 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the crucial return-value information (the full status enum) that the structured fields omit. Only minor gaps remain, such as what accompanies the status in the response.

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 is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by its call_id' merely restates the schema and adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g. where the call_id came from).

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 resource (an earlier Cotlet call) and a specific retrieval (its status, keyed by call_id), and enumerates every terminal and intermediate state so the agent knows exactly what it will get back. No sibling tool overlaps this resource, so the lack of an explicit 'not for X' does not create ambiguity.

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 closing clause scopes it to calls whose prior response was pending or running, which effectively tells the agent this is a polling tool rather than a general history lookup. It stops short of naming an alternative or saying what to do once a terminal status is reached.

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?

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it states where the report goes, that error text and call_id are attached when available, that secrets are never included, and that an API key or sign-in is required. It does not mention what happens on duplicate submissions, consistent with idempotentHint=false but not explained.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its goal, then the trigger scenarios, then the content and auth constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, attached payload, secret handling and authentication, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits what the caller receives back or whether filing duplicates creates separate reports, a minor gap for a write tool.

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 enum values for `kind` and field meanings for `tool`, `app` and `call_id` are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning, clarifying that call_id and error text are picked up automatically when present, which is the baseline expectation given full schema documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Sends a report straight to the Cotlet team') and enumerates the concrete situations it covers: failed or wrong-data tools, blockers, missing tools/fields/apps. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling cotlet_request_apps, which plausibly overlaps with the 'app the task needed and Cotlet lacks' case.

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?

Clear contextual triggers are given ('failed or returned wrong data', 'an error you could not get past', 'needed and Cotlet lacks'), which is enough for an agent to decide when to file a report. It offers no explicit exclusion or pointer to cotlet_request_apps / cotlet_get_call, so edge-case routing is left to inference.

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?

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a live app is granted immediately, other requests go to the Cotlet team with a 72-hour response window, the operation is free, and authentication via Cotlet API key or sign-in is required. The mutation-like but non-destructive nature is consistent with the annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by outcome behavior, slug source, cost, and authentication. No wasted words.

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 request tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, how outcomes differ, where to get valid slugs, and what credentials are 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the apps parameter and slug examples. The description adds useful context by pointing to https://cotlet.dev/api/v1/apps as the canonical slug list, though it does not mention the maxItems limit.

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 and resource: request access to apps for the user's workspace. It distinguishes this from informational siblings like cotlet_apps and cotlet_balance by describing an action that submits an access request and explains the two possible outcomes.

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 frames the tool as the programmatic equivalent of 'Request access' in the console, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly say to use cotlet_apps first to discover slugs, so a small inference remains.

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns a one-time upload_url and file_id, requires an HTTP PUT to upload_url, enforces a 25 MB limit, states the URL works only once, and notes the Cotlet API key/sign-in requirement. These details are consistent with the non-read-only, non-destructive annotation profile and materially help the agent understand the workflow.

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 most important fact—what is returned and how it is used—is front-loaded in the first sentence. The remaining sentences cover upload method, size limit, one-time behavior, and auth without wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully explains the return values, the upload workflow, the file size constraint, one-time URL behavior, and authentication needs. An agent has enough information to invoke and chain this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with both name and content_type documented with examples in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond that, so the 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 verb and resource: it returns a one-time upload_url and file_id for a local file. It also clarifies the intended use cases (an image for a post, an attachment), but it does not explicitly distinguish this helper from sibling tools such as cotlet_browser_upload.

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 clear usage context: call this to obtain upload_url and file_id, PUT the file to upload_url, then pass file_id to any argument that accepts a file. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: it declares the call is credit-free ('Free') and that authentication via the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in is required, which matters for failure handling. It does not say what shape/format the response takes, but the field list largely compensates.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads the substantive return contents, the second carries the cost and auth facts. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, enumerating each field the agent will receive. Combined with the required-auth note, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as how failures look when the key is missing or what access-status values are possible.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the text conflicts with the empty 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 names a concrete resource — the Cotlet account identity for this connection — and enumerates exactly what comes back (email, workspace, access status, API key/OAuth client scope, callable apps, credit balance). That is far more specific than the bare 'who am I' title. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like cotlet_balance and cotlet_apps, which overlap on the balance and app-list portions of the response.

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 context is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight identity/permission check, and 'Needs the user's Cotlet API key or sign-in' plus 'Free' tells it the prerequisites and that no credits are consumed. However there is no explicit 'call this before cotlet_apps or cotlet_balance to verify access' routing, and no stated conditions under which this tool should be skipped.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about permissions, whether the board is shared/published by default, or what happens if parent_board_id is invalid — leaving real gaps for a mutating 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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted clauses, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise and lacks a leading verb to anchor the reader.

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 create tool with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what is returned (e.g., the new board's ID) or how the created board is scoped for sharing. No output schema exists to cover return semantics.

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%, and the schema already documents both title and parent_board_id including the 'Default: your Home' behavior. The description's mention of Home versus nesting mirrors the schema but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (a new board) and its placement (Home root or nested under a parent board), which is enough to distinguish it from rename_board, duplicate_board, and list_boards. It is a sentence fragment without an explicit verb, relying on the tool name and title to supply 'create'.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings such as duplicate_board (copy an existing board) or list_boards, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only routing hint is implicit in the placement wording.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is visible to 'everyone' and 'waits for the owner's approval', disclosing an asynchronous approval workflow an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive scope ('for everyone') is front-loaded ahead of the approval caveat. Nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the critical missing piece, the owner-approval gate. It could go slightly further on what the caller sees while approval is pending, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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%, with both board_id and comment_id documented including their source tools, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as ID format or where approval state appears.

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 and resource ('Delete a comment') plus the scope constraint 'you wrote, for everyone', which separates it from the sibling edit_comment. The sibling is not named explicitly, but the ownership and audience qualifiers make the operation 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?

'Delete a comment you wrote' implicitly tells the agent it cannot remove others' comments, which is a useful precondition. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to edit_comment for modification or states when deletion is inappropriate, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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?

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful scope information by saying the copy includes everything on the board and sub-boards, but it does not clarify what "as a template" means operationally or what side effects/permissions are involved.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently communicates the core action and the key included scope.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the main action and included content. However, it leaves ambiguity around what "as a template" means and does not mention the return value or confirmation behavior, which matters somewhat because there is no output schema.

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 board_id, title, and parent_board_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 and resource: it copies a board, including everything on it and sub-boards. This clearly distinguishes duplication from creating a new empty board, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as create_board or export_board.

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 phrase "as a template" implies the intended use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose duplicate_board instead of create_board, export_board, or other board tools. Usage is therefore only implied.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the authorship constraint, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens to the original text, permission failures, or rate limits.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and the key constraint. Nothing is superfluous.

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 three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the ownership constraint. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior if the comment no longer exists.

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 all three parameters (text, board_id, comment_id) are already documented in the schema, including how to obtain them. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Replace) and resource (text of a comment), and adds an ownership constraint ('you wrote') that distinguishes it from add_comment and delete_comment. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the operation is 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 phrase 'you wrote' implies a prerequisite (authorship) for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to edit versus delete or re-add a comment, nor any mention of alternatives. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Replace' usefully confirms that existing text is overwritten wholesale rather than merged, but nothing is said about whether the prior text is recoverable, permission requirements, or behavior on empty input.

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 that states action and target with no filler. It is arguably too terse, but it wastes nothing.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the essentials are present. It nonetheless omits what an agent would want for a destructive write: whether the change is undoable, whether editor permission is required, and how empty or very long text is handled.

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%, with per-parameter descriptions already explaining text, card_id sourcing, and board_id sourcing. The description adds only the implication that 'text' is a complete replacement, with no format or length detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the text of a note card.' 'Replace' signals a full overwrite rather than an append, which separates it from sibling add_note. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_note (create) or edit_comment (comment text), and no prerequisites such as needing a note ID from get_board. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds useful parity context ('as the Export menu does'), implying the output matches the UI's export, but says nothing about what is actually returned (file bytes, URL, base64) or size/time limits for large boards.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action, resource, and format set; nothing redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does not — the agent cannot tell whether it receives a document string, a file reference, or a download link. Everything about the inputs is complete, but the output side is a notable gap for an export tool.

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 are described there, so the description's format list merely restates the enum. It adds no syntax or behavioral hint beyond the schema (e.g. whether png truncates content).

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?

Specific verb (Export) + resource (a board) plus the exact output formats and a familiar frame of reference ('as the Export menu does'). No sibling tool performs exporting, so an agent can immediately place it in the toolset.

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 only implied by the name and the 'Export menu' parallel; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over, say, get_board for reading content, nor any prerequisites (permissions, board state). Since no true alternative exists for producing a file, the omission is forgivable but real.

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?

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return-content context by enumerating card types and sub-boards, but it does not explain comment inclusion, pagination, or output shape.

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 no waste. Every listed item is relevant to what the tool returns.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description gives enough content context to call it correctly. It is slightly incomplete about comment inclusion and return structure, but no output schema exists and the core behavior is covered.

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%, with board_id and include_comments fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States the resource and the concrete contents returned: every card on a board, including notes, links, images, files, to-do lists, columns, and sub-boards. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_boards, though it relies on the tool name for the verb and does not name alternatives.

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: fetch a board when its full card content is needed. The description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_boards, list_boards, or other retrieval tools, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a board_id.

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?

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the sharing subjects returned and mentioning the read-only link with its settings, though it does not discuss authorization requirements or response shape.

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 compact sentence fragment with the key return scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing is slightly less clear than a complete sentence would be.

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, single-parameter read tool with rich safety annotations and a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete. It describes the return subject even without an output schema, though it does not detail the exact response structure.

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%, and the only parameter board_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline 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 specifies the resource being retrieved: who can access a board, including owner, editors, and read-only link settings. It is clear enough to distinguish this from board-content retrieval such as get_board, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 intended use is implied by the stated return content, but the description does not explicitly contrast this with sharing-related siblings such as invite_editor, remove_editor, publish_board, or unpublish_board. An agent can infer it is for inspection rather than modification, but the guidance is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the shape of the result (per-card-type counts versus the free plan limit). It does not say what happens for paid accounts or how the limit is determined, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core measurement and the per-card-type breakdown. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full clause, which is the only structural weakness.

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 reporting tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential return semantics: counts by card type relative to the free plan limit. What is missing is only finer detail (units, whether the limit value itself is returned), which is minor at this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties=false).

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 names a specific resource and scope: card counts measured against the free plan's limit, broken down by card type. It lacks an explicit verb (the title's 'Get' carries that), but the content is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what information comes back. No sibling tool overlaps with usage/quota reporting, so differentiation is not an issue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be authenticated), and no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'against the free plan's limit'.

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?

Annotations already flag a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent, destructive operation; the description adds the two facts the annotations cannot convey — that an external email is sent and that the grant is pending owner approval rather than effective immediately. It does not cover repeat-invite behavior (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or failure modes, which keeps it at 4.

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, both load-bearing, with the core action first and the approval caveat second. Zero 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers purpose, propagation scope, and the approval gate. What's missing is what a successful call returns or how the pending state is observed later, which an agent would need to confirm the outcome.

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 already documented, including that board_id accepts an ID from list_boards or a board URL. The description only adds that the email identifies the invitee and that board_id's scope extends to nested boards — useful but marginal over 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Invite someone by email to edit a board'), plus a scope statement that the grant cascades to boards inside it. An agent can distinguish it from remove_editor or get_sharing without opening the schema, though it doesn't name those siblings.

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 (grant edit access to a person by email) and the 'waits for the owner's approval' clause tells the agent the invite is not immediate. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of who may issue invites, and no reference to the alternative of checking existing access via get_sharing first.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (title, ID, link), which matters because there is no output 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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and the returned fields trailing. It is efficient and free of filler, though the opening clause is grammatically confusing ('Boards inside one board').

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming returned fields. It still omits ordering, pagination/limit behavior, and how deeply nesting is traversed, which an agent might reasonably want.

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 both limit and parent_board_id are fully documented in the schema, including the ID-or-URL format and Home default. The description only restates the default scope, adding no new semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (boards) and the scope (boards nested inside a parent board, defaulting to Home), plus the returned fields. However, the phrasing 'Boards inside one board' is awkward and it never distinguishes this from siblings like list_recent_boards, search_boards, or get_board, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 states the default scope (Home boards) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With several list/search siblings available, an agent gets no routing signal for choosing list_boards over search_boards or list_recent_boards.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned data ('name and colour') even though there is no output schema. It omits scope (which labels — board, workspace, account) and whether the list is exhaustive.

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 compact sentence with no filler, leading immediately with the resource and then the return fields. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and even hints at return values. The one meaningful gap is scope — an agent cannot tell whether this returns labels for the current board, the workspace, or the whole account, which matters before calling add_label.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is consistent with the description's claim of a parameterless enumeration.

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 (implicitly listing) and resource (labels applicable to cards), plus the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from add_label by the 'list' framing. It stops short of naming any sibling or scope, but an agent knows exactly what this retrieves.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as add_label, which is the obvious follow-on consumer of this data. The usage is only inferable from the noun phrase 'labels you can put on cards', not stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes real value beyond that by disclosing result ordering ('newest first') and cross-tree scope, but it says nothing about how recency is tracked, per-user vs. per-workspace, or behavior when recents are empty.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns and then the ordering and scope qualifiers. Nothing redundant is included.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs. The only residual gaps are the absence of sibling routing and empty-result behavior, which are minor at this complexity level.

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 is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('1 to 50. Default 20.'), so the schema carries all the semantics. The description adds no detail about limit behavior, which is acceptable at baseline 3 but is a missed opportunity to mention truncation of recents.

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 identifies a specific resource (boards the user opened recently) and adds two differentiating qualifiers: recency ordering ('newest first') and scope ('wherever they sit in your board tree'), which separates it from list_boards and search_boards. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, and the verb is implied rather than stated, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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 only implied: 'opened lately' suggests picking this over a full hierarchy listing when the user wants recent activity. No alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use search_boards to find a board by name).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-content context by noting that cards and boards include the board each came from, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or result limits.

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 carefully worded sentence that front-loads the resource and scope. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry some responsibility for explaining return values. It gives a useful high-level summary of what is returned, but lacks details like ordering, pagination, or whether all trashed items are included, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the response.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: cards and boards that have been moved to trash. It distinguishes the tool's output from siblings like trash_cards and restore_card by focusing on viewing trashed items, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 by the name list_trash and the description of trashed content, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus restore_card or trash_cards. For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the implied usage is adequate but not fully articulated.

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?

Annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds useful scope by noting that sub-boards can be moved and that column moves are supported, but it does not explain side effects such as removal from the source position, ordering, or permission requirements.

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 filler. It communicates the action and scope efficiently.

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 four-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the core action and movement scope adequately. Some behavioral detail is absent, but the annotations and schema provide the safety and parameter context needed to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema documents all four parameters including defaults and the fact that to_column_id places the card at the top. The description adds only a general mapping to board/column movement, not syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 and resource: 'Move a card or a sub-board' to a board or column. The purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as duplicate_board, trash_cards, or restore_card.

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 what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention required conditions for moving a card or when another sibling tool should be used 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?

Annotations already flag openWorldHint, destructiveHint and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the result is a public link anyone can open without signing up, and the publish is gated on owner approval, meaning the call may not take effect immediately. It does not address re-publish behavior or idempotency conflicts, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and its effect front-loaded before the approval caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 3-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are present: what changes, who can access it, and that approval gates the effect. However, the agent is not told how to verify that approval happened (likely get_sharing) or what happens if the board is already published, which are real gaps for an async operation.

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 board_id, allow_comments and allow_downloads are already fully documented with defaults. The description adds no additional meaning to any parameter (e.g. that allow_comments/allow_downloads only matter once the link is live), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Turn on a board's read-only link') plus the observable effect, which is far more informative than the title. It implicitly contrasts with unpublish_board but never names the sibling or the narrower sharing tools (get_sharing, invite_editor), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of unpublish_board as the inverse operation or get_sharing as the way to inspect the link afterwards. The clause about the owner's approval hints at prerequisites but leaves the agent to infer them.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them by noting the action waits for the owner's approval, which tells the agent the removal may not be immediate. It doesn't say what the response looks like or what happens on denial, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary invite-cancellation 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two use cases and the approval wait, but leaves open what the call returns while pending, whether the target is notified, and the failure/denial path. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.

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 email/user_id/board_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Take away someone's access to a board') and explicitly covers the second case of cancelling an unaccepted invite. This clearly separates it from invite_editor/get_sharing without opening their schemas.

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 context is clear: revoke existing access or cancel a pending invite. It does not name an alternative when removal fails or when the target is an owner vs editor, but the trigger condition is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what is affected by the rename or why it is marked destructive.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple rename operation.

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 and the schema plus annotations cover parameters and safety hints. However, the description is extremely minimal and does not explain usage context, destructive implications, or expected outcome, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: changing a board's title. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as create_board or duplicate_board.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites are needed. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the simple action.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact that annotations cannot convey – the item returns to its original location rather than to an arbitrary one. It says nothing about what happens if the ID is not in the trash, or whether restoring can fail or displace existing content, which is notable given destructiveHint=true.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the outcome (returned to original position) is front-loaded alongside the action. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that fully cover the safety profile, this is nearly complete. The only real gap is preconditions and failure behavior for a non-trashed ID, which is minor given the schema already points at list_trash.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema coverage the baseline is a 4. The description earns that baseline by clarifying that card_id may refer to a board as well as a card, a distinction the parameter name itself does not make.

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 names a specific verb ('take out of the trash') and resource ('a card or board') and states the resulting effect ('put it back where it was'). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling trash_cards and from the read-only list_trash without opening any schema.

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 usage is implied by the word 'trash' – an agent can infer this is the undo for trashing – but the description never says when to use it, that the item must already be trashed, or that list_trash is the way to find valid IDs. The schema description ('ID of a trashed card or board from list_trash') carries that routing information 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that search spans boards and cards, but it does not describe result limits, pagination, or return 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The scope and UI analogy are compact and immediately useful.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient. A little more detail on result scope or ordering would make it fully complete, but nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, and both the required query parameter and the sort enum are documented in the schema. The description reinforces that search is text-based but adds no parameter-level detail beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: find boards and cards by text across your boards. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling listing tools such as list_boards or list_recent_boards.

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 phrase "by text" and the Search icon analogy imply this is the tool for text-based lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of list_boards or list_recent_boards. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the color bar can be cleared, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or side effects. No contradiction exists between the description ('colour or clear') and the annotations (destructive mutation).

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action and target without redundancy 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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations that cover safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that changes affect only the visual color bar (non-destructive to data), but that is a minor omission and not essential for correct invocation given the available structured fields.

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%, and each parameter is well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning—it merely restates that clearing is possible, which the schema already specifies via the 'none' enum value. With the schema doing all the heavy lifting, the 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 verb ('Colour') and a concrete set of resources (the bar on top of a note, to-do list, link, file, or column), making the tool's effect clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, but no sibling performs the same action, so the purpose is 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 when to use the tool—whenever a card's color bar should be set or cleared—but offers no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. A straightforward mutating tool like this has an obvious implied use case, yet the definition stops short of guiding the agent on when not to use it or how it relates to other color-related operations.

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?

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful scope by saying it affects exactly one task and can both tick and untick it, but it does not explain permissions, side effects, recovery, or return 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core operation.

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 and the schema plus annotations cover parameter meaning and mutation safety. However, the description is quite thin for a destructive mutation and does not provide usage context or error/return expectations.

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 documents board_id, card_id, task, and done. The description only reinforces the singular task scope and does not add syntax, default behavior, or validation details beyond 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 states a specific action and resource: ticking or unticking one task in a to-do list. It is clearer than a tautology and distinguishes itself from list/board tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling task mutations such as add_todo_list or move_card.

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 use for changing a task's completion state, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to use this versus other task or board editing 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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation waits for the owner's approval, meaning the effect is deferred and conditional — something an agent could not know from the annotations alone. It stops short of saying whether the trash is restorable or what happens if approval is denied.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the operation and its scope front-loaded and the approval caveat second. Every clause carries 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?

With only two fully documented parameters and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the lifecycle after the call (deferred approval, recoverable via restore_card) which matters for an agent planning a multi-step workflow.

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%: both board_id and card_ids are documented, including the 1–50 limit and that a sub-board's board_id is accepted. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Move ... to the trash') and resource ('cards or sub-boards'), plus a familiar analogy ('as the Delete key does'). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (restore_card, list_trash), but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

'As the Delete key does' implies the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs restore_card/move_card, nor guidance on what to do after trashing (list_trash, restore_card). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to say what is actually destroyed, and it does: the read-only link and the access it granted to prior recipients. It stops short of confirming that board content and editor access are unaffected, which would fully close the loop.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence, with no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece — the effect on people holding the link. It could add whether the action is reversible or repeatable, but that is a minor gap.

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 single board_id parameter is already documented as coming from list_boards or the board URL. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action (turn off the read-only link) on a specific resource (a board) and states the user-visible consequence (link holders can no longer open it). It is clearly the inverse of publish_board, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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 by the effect described — you call this when you want the shared link to stop working — but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as changing sharing settings or removing editors, and no mention of how to re-enable access.

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?

Annotations already declare write, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the destination Unsorted panel and accepted formats, but it does not explain why destructiveHint is true, what happens on failure, or whether existing content can be affected.

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 short, waste-free sentence. Its main structural weakness is that it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement.

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 rich schema and annotations cover most operational details, and the description discloses the destination panel. Still, it does not clarify the relationship to cotlet_upload_file or the implications of the destructiveHint annotation, so it is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 detailed file object and board_id docs already carry parameter meaning. The description repeats formats and mentions the Unsorted destination but adds no parameter semantics beyond 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?

Names the concrete resource (image card), accepted file types, and destination (board's Unsorted panel), so the purpose is clear. However, the passive fragment does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as cotlet_upload_file or add_note.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only cue is the implied use of adding an image card to a board, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to cotlet_upload_file.

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