l0-py-blocks-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes effect and return type but omits side effects, permission requirements, or whether config is overwritten. Minimal transparency beyond parameter defaults.

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?

Structured with Args and Returns sections. Mostly concise, though param defaults are repeated from schema. Clear but not extremely tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers all parameters and return type. Lacks behavioral context like idempotency or policy effects. Given complexity and no annotations, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 0%, and description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and defaults, adding significant value beyond schema titles.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Activate social login for the project by updating authentication configuration.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like enable_authenticator_mfa or get_authentication_config by specific action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. Usage is implied from description but lacks guidance on prerequisites or situations where other tools are preferred.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing credentials), required permissions, or error conditions. The return type is mentioned, but behavior is not fully disclosed.

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 uses a docstring format with Args and Returns, which is structured and moderately concise. It could be slightly more compact without losing 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?

With 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview. The output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, missing details on param defaults and behavior diminish completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining several parameters (provider, client_id, client_secret, project_key, is_enable, redirect_uri). However, the 'audience' param is not described, and some descriptions are minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it adds social login credentials for OAuth providers with examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'activate_social_login', which may have a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates a read-only operation returning a JSON string with availability status. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple check tool, the transparency is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the purpose and return value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description mentions the return type. For a simple check tool, this is sufficiently complete, though more detail on the JSON structure could be added.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no additional parameter information, but there are no parameters to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks if Blocks CLI is installed and available, with a specific verb 'check' and resource 'Blocks CLI'. It is distinct from sibling tools like install_blocks_cli.

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 usage as a prerequisite check before using CLI-dependent tools, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, or permissions. It mentions 'Configure' implying mutation but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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?

Description is short with a title sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. Could add warnings or examples, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description should provide richer context. Missing parameter, no explanation of configuration effect, and no idempotency or re-configuration behavior. Output schema exists but description of returns is minimal.

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 0%; description adds meaning for three of four parameters, but omits 'use_blocks_db' and uses inconsistent naming (connectionString vs connection_string). Partially helpful but incomplete and potentially confusing.

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 verb 'configure' with 'Blocks Data Gateway for GraphQL operations' indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_blocks_data_gateway_config' as the write operation, though not 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_blocks_data_gateway_config). No prerequisites or preconditions mentioned.

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?

Description indicates it's a write operation and mentions return format (JSON with module ID and name). No annotations provided, so it carries full burden. Does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error states.

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?

Concise and well-structured with Args section. Every sentence adds value: purpose line, parameter descriptions, return statement. No 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?

Adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return for a simple create tool with 2 params and existing output schema. Lacks details on error handling or prerequisites (e.g., project existence), but not critical.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear semantics: module_name is the name, project_key is a tenant ID defaulting to global tenant. Adds meaning beyond schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'create', resource 'module for translation', and context 'in a project'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project or create_permission by specifying 'for translation'.

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?

Implied usage from description 'Create a new module for translation in a project', but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Lacks guidance on conditions or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses some behavior (defaults, tenant fallback) but omits side effects, idempotency, and error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers all parameters and return type. Lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., duplicate permissions) and error handling. Output schema is mentioned but not detailed.

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 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all 9 parameters, including defaults and examples (e.g., tags, project_key, type). Adds significant value beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new permission' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_permission and list_permissions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_permission). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions beyond the basic creation action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by an 'Args' section. The return line adds value, though front-loading the purpose is sufficient. No 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?

The description covers parameters and return format adequately but lacks context about what constitutes a project, prerequisites, potential conflicts, or how it fits among sibling tools. Adequate for a creation tool with an 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 5 parameters with clear, meaningful explanations, including an example for repo_name and default for is_production.

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 'Create a new project in Selise Cloud' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools (like create_module) and a listing tool (get_projects) without 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_projects for listing, other creation tools). No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a role and returns a JSON string, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains parameters and return value, but lacks context about role scope (global vs per-project), relationship to other role tools, and typical workflow. It is adequate but not complete given the complexity of a creation 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?

The description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter beyond the schema titles, especially the 'project_key' default behavior. With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable context.

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 'Create a new role' and lists the parameters, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_role_permissions' or 'list_roles' beyond the verb, so it loses some clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which creation should not be attempted. It only describes the 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it creates a schema (a mutation), but does not mention required permissions, side effects, whether creation is immediate, or what happens if the schema already exists. The return type is noted, but deeper behavioral details are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using a minimal docstring format with clear sections. The first sentence immediately states the purpose. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by placing the purpose in an even shorter sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (two parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers parameters and return value. However, it omits potential error scenarios and could clarify the relationship to sibling tools like 'finalize_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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It explains both parameters: 'schema_name' as the name, and 'project_key' as a tenant ID with a fallback to global tenant_id. This adds context beyond the schema's titles. However, it does not specify constraints on schema_name (e.g., allowed characters, length).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action ('Create a new schema') and the target resource ('Selise Blocks GraphQL API'). The verb+resource combination is specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'finalize_schema' or 'update_schema_fields', which slightly reduces clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'enables' MFA and returns a JSON string, omitting side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or what happens if MFA is already enabled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with only three lines covering purpose, parameter, and return value. No extraneous 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?

While the description covers the basics, it lacks context on permissions, error scenarios, and what the returned JSON structure looks like. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description could do more to guide the 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?

The description explains that 'project_key' is a tenant ID and will use the global tenant_id if not provided. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's title alone, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 it enables Authenticator MFA for a project, distinguishing it from siblings like enable_email_mfa and get_authentication_config. The verb 'enable' and resource 'Authenticator MFA' are specific and clear.

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 when setting up authenticator MFA, but provides no guidance on when to avoid it or compare to alternatives like enable_email_mfa. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the return type but fails to disclose side effects, permissions required, or whether existing settings are overwritten.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with only essential information: action, parameter, and return type. No redundant phrases.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks context about when to enable email MFA vs other options and does not mention the project scope beyond the parameter.

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 0%, but the description adds value by clarifying that project_key is the tenant ID and defaults to global tenant_id. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Enable Email Multi-Factor Authentication') and the target resource ('a project'). It distinguishes from sibling tool enable_authenticator_mfa which likely enables a different MFA method.

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 the project_key parameter and its default behavior ('Uses global tenant_id if not provided'), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus enabling other MFA types or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, authorization needs, and behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'finalizes' and 'retrieves updated schema', but does not explain what finalization entails (e.g., whether it commits changes, is destructive, or requires specific permissions).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by parameter definitions. It front-loads the purpose and is well-structured. No unnecessary words, though the parameter descriptions could be more integrated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown, but stated), the description's return value note is acceptable. However, it lacks preconditions (e.g., what steps 1 and 2 are) and does not fully cover behavioral aspects for a tool that appears to be part of a workflow. The context signals show moderate complexity, and the description provides adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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 description lists all three parameters in an Args block, adding the crucial detail for 'project_key' that it 'Uses global tenant_id if not provided'. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides names and defaults. Schema coverage is 0% (description doesn't mention parameters in prose), but the structured Args list compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Finalize schema changes') and links it to 'step 3 of schema field management', providing context. The verb 'finalize' and the resource 'schema changes' are specific, though the phrase 'by retrieving updated schema' slightly muddles the primary action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage is part of a multi-step process ('step 3'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_schema_fields or get_schema. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns a JSON string, which is helpful, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any potential side effects. Basic transparency is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, comprising two short paragraphs with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no enums, has output schema), the description provides sufficient information. It explains the parameter and return value. However, it could be more complete by mentioning how this configuration relates to other authentication 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'project_key' parameter's meaning and default behavior ('Uses global tenant_id if not provided'), adding significant value beyond the schema's title and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the current authentication configuration for the project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_auth_status', which may serve a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_auth_status'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (JSON string) and that it checks token validity, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is inherently safe.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a return note. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and what it returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. 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 clearly states it checks authentication status and token validity, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_authentication_config which retrieves configuration, not status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like activate_social_login or enable_email_mfa. The purpose is clear, but the description does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Get's' config (implying read-only) but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if configuration is missing.

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 very concise, with a clear title, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It does not include error scenarios but is sufficient for typical usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The project_key parameter is only a title in the schema. The description adds useful semantics: it explains that it is a tenant ID and defaults to global tenant_id, which provides meaning 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 clearly states 'Get Blocks Data Gateway configuration', with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'configure_blocks_data_gateway' which handles mutations.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the default tenant behavior but does not provide context on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools might be preferred.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states the operation is a get (read-only) and returns a JSON string, which are minimally helpful. Lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits, but the tool appears safe and simple.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It states what is retrieved and the return format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info because there are none. Schema coverage is 100%, so no gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Get the current global state including authentication and application domain.' Verb 'Get' and resource 'global state' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_authentication_config which are more granular.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify when it is appropriate or when to use sibling tools for specific aspects of state.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'Get available keys', suggesting read-only semantics, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The return format is briefly described ('JSON string with available keys including key names, IDs, and resources').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise paragraph with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value, and the format follows standard docstring conventions. No unnecessary 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers input parameters and return format. However, it lacks guidance on error handling, permissions, or examples for a translation module context. Minimal but sufficient for a simple 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does so: 'module_id: The ID of the module to get keys from' and 'project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get available keys in a specific module for translation in a project.' It specifies the resource (keys in a module for translation) and the action (get). The tool is distinct from siblings like 'save_module_keys_with_translations' (which writes) and 'get_translation_modules' (which lists modules).

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 usage in reading translation keys but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (get projects and extract domains) and parameter effects, but lacks disclosure on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or performance traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with clear headings (Args, Returns), is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the return description is sufficient. The tool has few optional parameters, and the description covers them. Minor missing details like error handling or output format specifics prevent a 5.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents each parameter (tenant_group_id, page, page_size) with their roles and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'projects' from 'Selise Blocks API', and also mentions 'extract application domains', making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_project or get_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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes its basic function without contextual selection advice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string and that if project_key is omitted, the global tenant_id is used. This is adequate for a read operation, though authentication or side effects are not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The Args/Returns section is clear and without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter, and return type. It lacks details about error handling or the exact structure of resource groups, but is generally sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the project_key parameter as a 'Project key (tenant ID)' and describes the fallback behavior to global tenant_id, providing useful context 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('available resource groups for a project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_projects` and `get_schema` by focusing on resource groups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the default behavior for the project_key parameter but does not mention appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes parameters and return type but omits behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or side effects. For a read operation, basic safety is implied but not stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using a parameter list format with brief explanations. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate sections for usage notes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters and defaults. It explains key parameter behaviors (e.g., project_key fallback). For a read tool with no complex side effects, this is sufficient for an agent to 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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema for several parameters. For example, project_key explains its default behavior ('Uses global tenant_id if not provided'), and page/page_size have explicit defaults. The schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter list compensates well, though role_slugs has minimal additional info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Get permissions assigned to specific role(s).' It specifies the resource (permissions) and the scope (specific roles), differentiating it from siblings like list_permissions (which likely lists all permissions) and set_role_permissions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the requirement for role_slugs implies it is for role-specific queries, providing implicit guidance. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, but the context is clear enough for basic usage.

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 states it returns a JSON string with schema fields and metadata, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects. Annotations are absent, so the description partially compensates but could be more explicit about being read-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?

The description is concise with three clear sections: purpose, arguments, and return. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently uses every sentence without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essentials: what it does, required/optional parameters, and return value. The 'step 1' context adds completeness for workflow understanding.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section adds crucial meaning: schema_id is 'the ID of the schema to retrieve' and project_key is 'Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided'. This effectively compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a schema's current fields using its ID', directly mapping to the tool name and distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_schemas' and 'update_schema_fields'. Mentioning 'step 1 of schema field management' adds context about its role in a workflow.

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 usage as the first step before modifying schema fields, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or specify when not to use it. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative 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?

The description discloses the return format (JSON string with language names, codes, default status) and the default behavior for project_key. Without annotations, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences plus a structured Args and Returns section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are likely further detailed there. The description covers the purpose, parameter usage, and output structure adequately for a simple tool. Missing details like whether the list depends on the project's existing translations, but overall complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only a string parameter with a default. The description adds that 'project_key' is a tenant ID and explains the fallback behavior, adding meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'available languages for translation in a project'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_translation_modules' and 'publish_translation' by focusing on languages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides the argument 'project_key' with an explanation that it is a tenant ID and defaults to the global tenant_id if omitted, giving clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string with modules) and parameter fallback, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether it is read-only. Adequate but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with a clear purpose statement first, followed by args and returns. No unnecessary words; every sentence is informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: parameter behavior and return type. Minor gaps include no example or definition of 'modules.'

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: it explains project_key as 'project key (tenant ID)' and the default behavior of using global tenant_id. This adds value 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 clearly states 'Get available modules for translation in a project,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_module or get_module_keys by focusing on retrieving available modules for translation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_module_keys. The description mentions default behavior for project_key but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning a JSON result but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., system modifications), error conditions, or assumptions (e.g., npm availability).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The key action is front-loaded, and the return value is stated succinctly.

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 and an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., npm, network) or behavior on failure, which could improve completeness for a system-modifying 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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it briefly notes the return type, which suffices for a zero-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool installs Blocks CLI using npm, with a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'check_blocks_cli' which is for checking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., npm required), or situations to avoid. A sibling like 'check_blocks_cli' exists but no differentiation is offered.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists configurations, but does not confirm it is read-only, safe, or mention any authentication requirements or side effects. The description is insufficiently transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every part is useful without extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no auth, likely read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, which would make it more robust. It is adequate but has gaps for an agent to fully understand when and how to use 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?

The description adds substantial meaning to the single parameter project_key, explaining it is a 'Project key (tenant ID)' and that 'Uses global tenant_id if not provided.' Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates fully and provides clear parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all CAPTCHA configurations for a project.' The verb 'list' and resource 'CAPTCHA configurations' are specific. The tool is distinctly different from sibling tools like save_captcha_config and update_captcha_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of prerequisites or 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior via parameters and mentions return format, but lacks safety information (e.g., read-only), required permissions, or error behaviors.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear, structured list of parameters and a return type. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 8 parameters, zero required fields, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type adequately. The return description ('JSON string with permission list result') could be more detailed, but the output schema likely fills that 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?

The description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including default values and meaning (e.g., 'project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided'), which is absent from the schema (0% coverage). This adds significant value 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 clearly states 'List all permissions for a project,' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (permissions) with a scope (for a project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_permission or update_permission by focusing on listing, not mutation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_role_permissions or list_roles. The description is purely declarative without usage context or exclusion statements.

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

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

No annotations provided; description compensates by disclosing pagination, default values, search filter, sorting, and project_key fallback behavior, though lacks 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?

Structure is concise and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a docstring-style list of parameters and return type, 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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (exists but not shown), description covers all parameters and return type; could add note on error handling or consistency but is sufficiently complete for a list 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed parameter semantics including defaults, meaning of project_key (includes tenant fallback), search, sort options, which fully compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'List all roles for a project' with specific verb 'list' and resource 'roles', distinguished from siblings like 'create_role' and 'get_role_permissions'.

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 implicitly shows usage via parameter details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, sorting, and default tenant behavior, but omits rate limits, authorization needs, or data scope (e.g., returns all schemas or only active ones). Some behavioral transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While concise, the Returns section slightly duplicates the output schema info. Still, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no required, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters, defaults, and basic behavior. It could mention error handling or output structure in more detail, but it is largely complete for a listing 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose and default behavior (e.g., project_key falls back to global tenant_id, keyword for filtering). This significantly compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List schemas from Selise Blocks GraphQL API', specifying the verb (list) and resource (schemas). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_schema or list_permissions, though the name and purpose imply listing all 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 provides parameter details but no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context like when to list vs get a single 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool makes translations available in the production environment, which discloses a key effect. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects on existing live translations, or error conditions (e.g., project doesn't exist).

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 well-structured with clear sections for description, arguments, and returns. It is concise enough for a single-parameter tool, though the overview paragraph could be slightly more compressed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema but described return), the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It lacks details on authentication or error handling, but these are not critical for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that project_key is the project key (tenant ID) and that it defaults to the global tenant_id if not provided. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, which only provides a title and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool publishes translations for a project, making them live. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like save_module_keys_with_translations, which might also affect translation state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for the final step of making translations live, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to, or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to other translation tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It briefly mentions the action (save) and input parameters, but does not disclose whether it overwrites or creates, validation behaviors, authentication needs, or side effects. The return format is stated as a JSON string, but details are minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. Each line adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. It is well-organized and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 5 parameters and related sibling tools, the description covers input semantics thoroughly. It mentions output shape (JSON string), but does not detail the structure. However, the presence of an output schema (though not shown) partially relieves the burden. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the 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 coverage is 0% (properties have only titles), so the description adds significant meaning by describing each parameter: provider options, site_key source, secret_key source, project_key default behavior, and is_enable default. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it saves CAPTCHA configuration for Google reCAPTCHA or hCaptcha, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_captcha_configs and update_captcha_status by focusing on saving/creating configurations.

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 usage by naming the tool, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternatives. It lacks information on when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral aspects like handling of new vs existing keys via IsNewKey, and defaulting of ProjectKey to global tenant ID. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects such as overwriting existing translations. The description is adequate but not 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary line followed by an organized 'Args' block. However, it is somewhat verbose in explaining nested objects. Each sentence is useful, but could be slightly more concise while maintaining 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?

Given the complexity of the nested request and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the core functionality, request structure, and return type (JSON string). It does not explain error handling or validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description's 'Args' section adds meaning by explaining each field in the nested request object, including the purpose of ProjectKey, IsNewKey, ItemId, and Resources. This compensates well for the schema deficiency.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool saves multiple translation keys with their translations to modules in a project. It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('translation keys with translations'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_module_keys or publish_translation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage is only implied by the action of saving batch translation keys. No exclusions or alternatives are discussed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Manually set' and 'Returns JSON string with confirmation' but lacks details on side effects (e.g., persistence, overriding, permissions). The behavioral implications are vague.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, a bullet list of parameters, and a return line. It front-loads the core action and avoids unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (only briefly mentioned), the description lacks completeness. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and detailed parameter semantics, leaving gaps for an agent to safely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It merely lists parameter names without explaining formats, constraints, or example values (e.g., domain must be a URL). This adds minimal value 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 clearly states the action (set), the resources (application domain and tenant ID), and the context (for repository creation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project or get_projects by focusing on configuration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is used before repository creation but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the context of 'for repository creation' offers some direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It indicates a write operation and describes the return value as a JSON string. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites like role existence.

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 structured with a summary line followed by parameter explanations, similar to a docstring. It is informative without redundant information, though slightly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's functionality well. It explains all parameters and the return type, though it omits error handling or dependency details.

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 0%, so the description must provide all parameter meaning. It does so effectively, explaining role_slug, add_permissions, remove_permissions, and project_key, including default values and that project_key uses global tenant_id if omitted.

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 'Assign or remove permissions from a role' which clearly identifies the verb (assign/remove) and resource (role permissions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_permission or get_role_permissions.

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 the parameters and their defaults, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but the core usage is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the mutation (enable/disable) but omits details on side effects, prerequisites, authentication, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a structured docstring format (Args, Returns) without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no enums, has output schema), the description adequately covers the objective, parameters, and return value. It could mention potential errors or prerequisites, but overall complete enough.

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 0% schema coverage (no descriptions in schema), the description provides clear explanations for all three parameters: item_id is the ID, is_enable maps boolean to enable/disable, and project_key with default behavior. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 verb ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('CAPTCHA configuration'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_captcha_configs' and 'save_captcha_config'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'save_captcha_config' for creation). Usage context 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update an existing permission' and lists parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, partial update behavior, required permissions, side effects, or what happens if the item_id does not exist.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then lists parameters in a structured Args block. While the list is lengthy, each entry adds value. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the redundant 'Args:' header, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all parameters and the return format ('JSON string with permission update result'). However, it lacks context about error handling, concurrency, or required permissions. Since an output schema exists (not shown), the return description is adequate, but behavioral completeness is moderate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args block provides detailed explanations for all 10 parameters, including defaults and special meanings (e.g., project_key uses global tenant_id, type default 3 means 'Data protection'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Update an existing permission.' which is a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_permission and list_permissions through the explicit 'update' action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_permission or related permission management tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or success criteria.

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?

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic filtering of reserved fields and default behavior for project_key. This adds transparency beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, well-structured with a summary line, Args section, and Returns statement, containing no unnecessary 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value completely. With an output schema present, it does not need to elaborate on return format further.

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 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the fields parameter structure and reserved field filtering, and clarifies the project_key default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update schema fields' and identifies it as 'step 2 of schema field management', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_schema and finalize_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 description provides implicit context by mentioning 'step 2', but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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