maxion-mcp-gateway

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

The description claims activation (a state change), but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, contradicting the behavior. The description also adds that for Lineage.0 the key is consumed after one generation, but the core contradiction lowers the score.

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 concise sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, and a specific product nuance. 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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and a special case. It does not explain the output (but output schema exists), and the contradiction is a gap, but for the description alone it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a concrete example for product_permalink but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 tool verifies and activates a Gumroad license key after purchase, specifying the required parameters and a specific product behavior. It differentiates from sibling billing_purchase, which handles the initial purchase.

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?

Description specifies to call after completing a Gumroad purchase, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or describe alternatives, but the sibling list implies other billing tools exist for purchasing.

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

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

Annotations are present but neutral (no readOnly, destructive hints). The description adds pricing context but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond 'returns a Gumroad checkout link'. Missing details like whether the tool initiates a purchase, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Adequate 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 front-loaded with the core action ('Returns a Gumroad checkout link') and then lists pricing. It's relatively concise, though the lineage0 tier list is lengthy. Every sentence adds value for parameter selection. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) 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 two parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter details per tool, and return type. It does not explain post-purchase steps (likely handled by billing_activate) but is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and how to call this tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by providing valid duration values per tool (e.g., detailed fixed-price tiers for lineage0) and clarifies which tiers exist for each tool. This helps the agent select correct values.

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 returns a Gumroad checkout link, with specific verb ('returns') and resource ('checkout link') for purchasing licenses across four distinct tool namespaces. It distinguishes itself from sibling billing/activation tools by focusing on purchase, not activation.

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 for purchasing licenses but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., billing_activate). It provides pricing tiers per tool, guiding duration parameter selection, but lacks exclusions or prerequisites like 'if already licensed, use billing_activate instead'.

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

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

Discloses download link valid for 1 hour, license requirement, and engine running locally. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences, well-structured and front-loaded with 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?

For a download tool with auth, time-limited link, and license dependency, description covers all essential aspects. Output schema exists so no need to detail return.

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 covers the one parameter with enum and description. Description does not add extra param info, but schema is sufficient. Baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a download of the desktop dashboard + engine, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (none are similar).

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (want local engine, live telemetry) and prerequisites (license key, need to call billing_purchase if missing).

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds behavioral context: it activates the engine (state change), returns live telemetry with specific fields, and mentions OS sensor dependency. No contradictions.

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 redundancy. 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 output schema and single parameter, the description fully covers purpose, prerequisite, returned telemetry, and constraints. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no further semantics, but the schema already suffices, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description explicitly states the action (activate), resource (Maxion V16), and return value (live host telemetry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like deactivate, status, and diagnostics.

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 a clear prerequisite: the local desktop engine must be installed via engine_download_desktop before activation. It explicitly states when not to use this tool, guiding the agent to call a sibling first if necessary.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important behavioral context that a prerequisite installation is needed for local hardware, but does not detail any further side effects or outputs.

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, each essential. First sentence states the core action, second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words.

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

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

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and sibling tool relation. It is complete and leaves no gaps.

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

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

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 'Ends the active Maxion V16 telemetry session,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like engine_maxion_activate and engine_maxion_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?

Explicitly provides a prerequisite: the local desktop engine must be installed for the user's own hardware, and directs to engine_download_desktop if not. This helps the agent decide when to call this tool and when to use an alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds important context: the tool requires prior installation of the desktop engine, and it gathers system info without modification. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states core purpose, second provides essential usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Comprehensive for a simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and well-documented annotations. The prerequisite guidance is a valuable addition that ensures correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter (deep_scan) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states it runs a Maxion V16 diagnostic pass and specifies the exact metrics checked (CPU brand, core count, total memory). Distinguishes from sibling diagnostics tools like engine_maxion_status by explicitly naming its diagnostic 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?

Explicitly says when to use (to run diagnostics) and provides a crucial prerequisite: the local desktop engine must be installed first, with a pointer to engine_download_desktop. This helps the agent avoid errors and select the right tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific output details (CPU load, temperature) and a prerequisite, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential usage guidance. No extraneous 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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and a key prerequisite. It feels complete for a read-only status check.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers all parameters. Per calibration, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 returns CPU load and temperature from the host system, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like engine_maxion_activate or engine_maxion_diagnostics by focusing on status readings.

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 a usage prerequisite: needing to install the desktop engine via engine_download_desktop before using on own hardware. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like engine_maxion_diagnostics.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety info. It adds valuable context about the scope (tools, license, billing, vault) beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose without wasted words. It earns its place with specific scope 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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose for a holistic overview. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The mention of 'all 20 tools, current license status, billing info, and Quezar vault statistics' is complete for a status 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so description has no burden to explain them. Baseline 4 applies as the tool requires no input, and the description is sufficient for a no-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 clearly states it provides a 'holistic health overview' covering all 20 tools, license status, billing info, and Quezar vault statistics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like engine_maxion_status or storage_quezar_status which are specific to subsystems.

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

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

The description implies use for an overall system health check, with sibling tools available for detailed subsystem status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it lists from S3 vault and focuses on 'recently synthesized' artifacts, providing context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key verb and resource, no redundant information. Every word serves a 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?

With zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (though not detailed here), the description fully covers the tool's function. No additional information needed for agent invocation.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies as there is no missing parameter information to compensate.

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 uses specific verb 'lists' and resource 'multimedia artifacts' with scope 'recently synthesized' and location 'AWS S3 vault'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like media_lineage0_generate (creates) and media_lineage0_status (checks 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?

Implied usage for retrieving recent artifacts, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives 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?

The description discloses polling behavior until synthesis completes and returns a presigned URL, as well as the licensing shortcut. Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful context without contradiction.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then polling behavior, then licensing shortcut. Every sentence adds value with 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 the tool's complexity (two modes, polling, output schema), the description covers essential behaviors. It implies duration_seconds is optional when license held, and output schema exists so return value is not needed. Minor gap: no mention of error handling, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining prompt as natural-language, media_type as output format with specific generators, and duration_seconds as required for video without license to determine checkout link, which goes beyond the schema enum 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 tool generates 4K AI video via Nova Reel 1.1 or commercial images via Nova Canvas, and also handles licensing by returning a checkout link. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated (billing, security, storage, etc.).

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 when to use the tool (to generate media or get a licensing checkout link) and notes that no separate billing.purchase call is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear given sibling tools are not for generation.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying 'real-time' and the exact scope ('Lineage.0 Nova synthesis cluster and S3 vault'), providing context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part ('Real-time status', 'Lineage.0 Nova synthesis cluster and S3 vault') adds essential information.

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

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

For a simple status tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently defines its scope. It could be more specific about the type of status returned, but the output schema likely handles that.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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

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

The description clearly states it provides 'real-time status' of a specific cluster and vault, distinguishing it from sibling tools like media_lineage0_archive and media_lineage0_generate which perform actions rather than status checks.

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 sibling tool names imply status vs. action, making the usage context clear but not directly guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns recent entries for the current session and requires the desktop engine for local execution. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical prerequisite. No unnecessary words, and information 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 simple input schema and existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells what the tool returns and the installation prerequisite. Minor omission: not clarifying the time range for 'recent,' but still 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 coverage for the single parameter 'count' is 100%, with a clear description including default and max. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool 'returns recent Diamonize security event log entries for the current session,' specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_diamonize_quarantine, security_diamonize_scan, and security_diamonize_status which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly provides a prerequisite (engine_download_desktop) for running on user's own hardware, guiding when to use an alternative tool first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of 'current session' implies remote use, and no sibling tool for logs exists.

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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: advisory-only nature, no file modifications, and installation prerequisite. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds operational context.

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

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

Two sentences covering core action, important constraints, and prerequisite. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the main 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?

Complete for a simple advisory tool with one parameter and an output schema. Covers prerequisite, non-destructive behavior, and confirmation return. No gaps.

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

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

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add new semantics beyond 'Absolute file path or process name' already in schema. No examples or format hints.

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 tool records a file/process as quarantined in Diamonize, emphasizing it is advisory-only and does not move/modify. This distinguishes it from typical quarantine actions and from sibling tools like security_diamonize_scan.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Advisory only; does not move or modify the file.' Also specifies a prerequisite (local desktop engine must be installed) and recommends calling engine_download_desktop if needed. No ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds the prerequisite for engine installation, which is a behavioral requirement beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on return format or pagination, but the presence of an output schema lessens the need.

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: the first concisely describes the tool's function and options, the second provides necessary prerequisite information. No redundant or vague language.

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 single parameter, clear input semantics, and mention of an output schema, the description covers all needed context for an agent to use the tool correctly, including installation prerequisite.

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 only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the two valid input types (file path vs 'SYSTEM_MEMORY') and what each does, going well beyond the schema's brief description.

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 performs a security scan, specifying two distinct operations: computing SHA-256 hash/byte size for a file or returning active RAM/process counts for 'SYSTEM_MEMORY'. This distinguishes it from sibling security tools like security_diamonize_logs and security_diamonize_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?

Provides explicit context for when to use (to run a scan) and a critical prerequisite: the local desktop engine must be installed via engine_download_desktop. However, it does not directly mention alternative tools for similar tasks, though the distinction from siblings is implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the prerequisite condition but does not mention other behaviors like rate limits or response structure. With safe annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and following with a critical guideline. No wasted words.

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

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

For a simple status tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key prerequisite. It is complete given the tool's complexity and available annotations.

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%, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details but provides contextual prerequisite info, which is sufficient.

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 returns the Diamonize security scanner status and timestamp. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security_diamonize_logs, quarantine, and scan, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides a clear prerequisite: the desktop engine must be installed for on-premise use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like security_diamonize_logs or gateway_status, lacking usage 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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the context of 'Permanently purges' which aligns with destructiveHint, and explains a prerequisite behavior (desktop engine requirement). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides essential prerequisite guidance. No redundant or unnecessary 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 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, permanence, and a key prerequisite. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation needed.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'Vault_id' already described as 'The Vault ID of the record to permanently delete.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Permanently purges a record from the Quezar Quantum Vault' uses a specific verb ('purges') and specifies the resource ('record from the Quezar Quantum Vault'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'storage_quezar_store' (store), 'storage_quezar_retrieve' (retrieve), and 'storage_quezar_list' (list).

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 explicitly states a prerequisite condition for running on the user's own hardware: the local desktop engine must be installed first, and it names the alternative tool 'engine_download_desktop' for that purpose. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for other scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the hardware dependency, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. It doesn't explain return format, but that's covered by the output schema.

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

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

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's action, the second provides a key usage prerequisite. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

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

Given zero parameters, a present output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adds the only missing piece: the prerequisite for local hardware. It is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. The mention of 'encrypted sector IDs' provides some context about output, but with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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 title 'List Quezar Sectors' and description 'Lists all encrypted sector IDs currently stored in the Quezar Quantum Vault' use a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like storage_quezar_delete or storage_quezar_store.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: the local desktop engine must be installed before using this tool on user's own hardware, and directs to engine_download_desktop if not yet installed. This provides clear guidance on when and how to prepare for using this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Description adds that decryption occurs and that the tool runs on user's own hardware, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 succinct sentences: first states purpose, second adds critical prerequisite. No redundant words, front-loaded information.

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

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

With one required parameter, an output schema, and clear description including prerequisite and hardware context, the description is complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of Vault_id parameter. Description does not add additional meaning beyond 'by Vault ID', which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states the tool decrypts and retrieves a payload from the Quezar Quantum Vault by Vault ID, with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('Quezar Quantum Vault'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_quezar_store and storage_quezar_delete.

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 explicit prerequisite: call engine_download_desktop first if running on user's own hardware. Offers when-to-use context (retrieve by Vault ID), but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools beyond the prerequisite.

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

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the requirement for a prior engine installation, which annotations do not cover.

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: one for purpose, one for prerequisite. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core 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?

With zero parameters, explicit annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and a key prerequisite. No gaps.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rule. The description correctly adds no parameter information, as none exist.

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 provides 'sector count, vault size, and encryption stats' for Quezar telemetry. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like storage_quezar_delete or storage_quezar_list.

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 includes a prerequisite: the local desktop engine must be installed, and it names the tool to call if not. This guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but the sibling context already differentiates.

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

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

Annotations are sparse (no destructiveHint, readOnlyHint=false, etc.). The description adds valuable behavioral context: encryption algorithm (AES-256-GCM), return of Vault ID, and hardware prerequisite. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could mention idempotency or whether it overwrites existing data, but for a create-like operation this is sufficient.

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: first states the core action and return value, second provides prerequisite guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (returns Vault ID), the description covers generation, encryption, storage, return value, and prerequisite. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'payload' described as 'Plain-text data up to 10 MB'. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It mentions encryption but that's not parameter-specific.

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 'Encrypts and stores' and the resource 'payload in the Quezar Quantum Vault using AES-256-GCM'. It also mentions the return value (Vault ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like storage_quezar_retrieve or storage_quezar_delete.

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 explicitly provides a prerequisite: 'To run on the user's OWN hardware, the local desktop engine must be installed first: call the engine_download_desktop tool before this one if it hasn't been installed yet.' This guides the agent on when to use this tool and what to do before, which is excellent.

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