onboarding-checklist-inspection-runs

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds quota/rate-limit context ('Free tier: 3 checklists, and unlimited runs') and return-value behavior (CL-NNNN id). It does not contradict any annotation.

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

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

Three short sentences with the core action and return value front-loaded, then the required follow-up tool and quota. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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

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

For a three-parameter tool with fully described schema and no output schema, the description supplies the return id, the next workflow step, and the quota context. An agent has enough information to invoke it 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter details and the description adds little. The prose slightly leaves category optionality ambiguous, though the schema clarifies category is optional with default 'general'.

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

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

States the exact action ('Create a reusable checklist') and the resource, plus the returned CL-NNNN id. It also clarifies scope by directing steps to checklist_item_add, so it is distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 routes the follow-up step to checklist_item_add, telling the agent not to add steps with this tool. The free-tier cap of 3 checklists gives a concrete condition for when creation is allowed or limited.

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 mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: deleting the checklist does not affect already-started runs because runs carry their own copy of steps, so signed content remains accessible. This goes beyond the annotation and helps an agent understand real-world consequences before invoking.

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 filler. The core destructive action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently explains why existing runs remain readable.

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

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool, the description provides the key context an agent needs: what is deleted, what survives, and that the action is permanent. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the core behavioral caveats are covered.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and already explains the `confirm` and `checklist` parameters, including the no-undo caveat. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a checklist and its steps for good.' This clearly distinguishes it from checklist_item_remove, which removes a single step, and from checklist_list/show, which only read. The scope of destruction is explicit.

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 strongly implies the tool is for removing an entire checklist, not individual items, and clarifies the downstream effect on runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like checklist_item_remove, but the 'for good' phrasing and the emphasis on runs being unaffected give an agent enough context to decide when 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?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that a required step blocks sign-off while an optional one does not, and by noting the returned id. It does not mention duplicate creation on repeated calls, but the idempotentHint=false annotation already covers non-idempotency.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and return value, then adds the key business rule about required steps. It is easy to scan and fully relevant.

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 the core return value and the most important behavioral consequence (sign-off blocking). It does not describe the exact output shape or error conditions, but the schema covers parameter details and the annotations cover mutation/idempotency, making this reasonably complete for an add-item tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description only loosely references text, section heading, and required status without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Add one step to a checklist') and names the concrete resource and return value (an I01-style id). It is clearly distinct from siblings like checklist_item_remove and checklist_create.

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

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

The description says what the tool does but does not provide when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It never mentions that removing a step should use checklist_item_remove or that checklist_create is for creating a new checklist.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it bumps the checklist version, preserves already-started runs, and guarantees no ticked data is rewritten. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 filler: the first states the action, target, and side effect; the second covers the important non-destructive nuance for active runs. Every sentence carries weight.

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

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

For a low-complexity two-parameter mutation with a robust description, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema and no mention of error cases, but the side effects and input semantics are sufficiently covered.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description adds the 'I01-style id' format phrase and the version-bump side effect, but these do not substantially expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: remove one step from a checklist by id, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling checklist_delete (whole checklist) and checklist_item_add (opposite operation). It also names the id style and the version side effect, leaving no 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?

Clear context: this is the targeted single-step removal tool, so an agent can infer it is the right sibling when modifying a checklist item rather than deleting the whole checklist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is unambiguous.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the 500-row cap, the ordering by newest change, and the filtering semantics. It doesn't describe pagination or what happens when the cap is hit, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 zero waste. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, followed by filters and constraints. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, filters, row limit, and ordering. It doesn't mention pagination or the exact shape of the response, but the annotations cover safety and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (category and contains) with their matching semantics. The description adds a brief mention of filtering by category or name word, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('checklists'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (category, version, step count, run count). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like checklist_show by describing a list operation with filters and limits.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's scope (all checklists, with optional filters) and its constraints (at most 500 rows, newest change first). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like checklist_show, but the list-vs-show distinction is clear from the sibling names and the description's emphasis on multiple rows and filtering.

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the output shape: ordered steps, section grouping, required count, run count, and the printable as_text variant. Error behavior is not covered, but the core behavior is 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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first describes the returned content and the second gives a practical parameter tip. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan, though a bit telegraphic.

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

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

For a simple read-only two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the main return content. It does not mention not-found behavior or what happens if a name is ambiguous, though the schema partially addresses name resolution. It is adequate but leaves some edge cases unstated.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a small clarification about as_text producing a box against each step, but largely restates what the schema says. It does not add substantial meaning beyond the structured definitions.

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 that the tool returns one checklist with its ordered steps grouped by section, plus counts of required items and runs started. This is specific and distinguishes it from a plain list or creation tool, though it does not explicitly name checklist_list as the alternative.

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving a single detailed checklist alert. It also gives a concrete parameter-usage tip for as_text. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to checklist_list for browsing all checklists, so guidance is only 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 indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: existing data under the token stays, and a wrong or expired key changes nothing. This goes beyond the annotation hints by explaining failure semantics and safety of the operation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives the key format and safety guarantees, and closes with the verification tool. Every sentence contributes 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 single-parameter activation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what input is needed, what happens on failure, and how to confirm success. There is no missing critical information for an agent to call it 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 schema already documents the key parameter and its format with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that the key must be issued at checkout for this server or the bundle, which clarifies validity requirements not present in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'turns Pro on' for the connection using a license key. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling license_status tool by saying license_status confirms the activation. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 clear context for use: the key must be an MCPL1.<payload>.<signature> issued at checkout for this server or the bundle. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but it does reference license_status as the confirmation path, giving the agent a sense of the workflow.

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. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the JSON response contents and stating 'nothing changes,' reinforcing the read-only nature of the call.

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

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

Two dense sentences cover output, purpose, usage context, and side-effect guarantee. Every sentence earns its place and the most important 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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return value. With no parameters, annotations covering safety, and a clear use case, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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

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

There are zero parameters and the schema already fully documents that fact. The description explicitly says 'No arguments,' which is accurate and reinforces the schema without needing further elaboration.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Report') and a precise resource ('this endpoint's licence state for your token'), and enumerates the exact output fields: product, tier, reason, and checkout URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like license_activate.

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 when to call it: 'Call it to explain a free-tier refusal.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state 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?

Annotations provide no behavioral hints beyond non-read-only/non-destructive defaults, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key mutation semantics: 'na counts as answered and never as passed', and that a step can be re-answered with the last answer standing. This is valuable and goes beyond the annotations.

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

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and accepted states, followed by important semantics about 'na' and overwriting. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what states are allowed, who/when attribution, the special 'na' meaning, and re-answering behavior. It does not describe the return value, but that is acceptable when no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by explaining how 'state' interacts with 'by'/'at', and clarifies the special behavior of 'na' beyond the raw enum 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 verb ('Mark'), the resource (one step in a run), and the exact allowed outcomes (pass, fail, or na). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like run_start or run_sign_off by focusing on step-level answering rather than run-level lifecycle actions.

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 makes the usage context clear: answer a specific step in an open run, with optional who/when attribution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but its scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can route to it correctly.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: deletion is permanent, cascades to every answer, and signed-off runs are refused. This goes beyond the hint by describing the refusal rule and the lack of recovery, though it omits minor operational details such as 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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: deletion scope, refusal condition, and the safer alternative action. There is no filler and no repetition of schema 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?

For a two-parameter destructive delete with a forced confirm flag, the description plus schema and annotations cover the action, its irrevocability, cascade behavior, and an important edge case (signed-off runs). No output schema is present and none is required.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'run' and 'confirm' are fully documented in structured form. The description adds context about the irreversible scope of deletion, but it does not need to re-describe the parameters since the schema already carries that burden.

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

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

States a specific destructive verb and resource ('Delete a run for good, with every answer on it'), and clarifies the scope of deletion includes all answers. It differentiates from ordinary run operations by explicitly refusing signed-off runs, making it distinct from run_sign_off and other run-related siblings.

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

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

Gives clear guidance: use deletion for runs no longer wanted, but do not delete a signed-off run and abandon it instead. The alternative is described as 'abandon' rather than naming a specific sibling tool, so the referral is slightly 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?

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: newest-first ordering, the run fields included, and the 500-row maximum. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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

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

Three short sentences front-load the core behavior, summarize filtering options, and state the row limit. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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

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

For a read-only list tool with five optional filters, the description covers ordering, key return fields, filter categories, and the row cap. It does not describe the full return structure and there is no output schema, but enough is present for an agent to invoke it 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 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all five filters, so the description does not need to carry the parameter burden. It summarizes most filter options but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the action as listing runs and specifies the returned content: checklist, progress, and sign-off state, plus newest-first ordering. It is distinct from single-run siblings like run_show and run_status, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or draw the distinction.

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 listed filters imply that this tool is for broad read-only queries over runs rather than for acting on a single run. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus run_show, run_status, or run_report, so the guidance remains implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: output is plain text on every tier, the Pro download link is valid for one hour, the file is named by out_path, and the report includes marks, answers, notes, counts, and signature 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core output type, then covers report contents, tier differences, download link lifetime, and file naming in efficient clauses. Minor grammatical awkwardness like 'The run as plain text' keeps it from being perfect.

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

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

For a simple read-only tool with three parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately cover output format, tier restrictions, file naming, link expiry, and overwrite behavior. It does not detail the exact response envelope, but the output is described well enough 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 100%, and the schema already explains out_path's Pro-only nature, the fallback to text when omitted, the one-hour link validity, and overwrite's default-false behavior with refusal when a file exists. The description largely restates these facts rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's resource and output: it produces a run report as plain text containing steps, marks, answers, notes, counts, and a signature block, with an optional Pro-only download link. It is distinguishable from siblings like run_show and run_status by the report-specific contents, though it relies on the title for the explicit verb 'Produce.'

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 and out_path parameter give clear tier-based usage guidance: every tier can get text output, and Pro users can receive a .txt download link valid for one hour. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as run_show or run_status, leaving some selection to inference.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing exactly what the response contains, including grouped steps, answer attribution, counts, full failures, and sign-off eligibility.

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

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

One dense, front-loaded sentence lists the full content of the response without waste. The colon structure makes the scope clear immediately, and every clause contributes useful information.

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

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

For a read-only tool with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool returns and how detailed it is. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no pagination or side effects are relevant.

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 fully documents the single parameter, including type, max length, and an example format. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The title and description clearly identify the tool as showing a single run in full detail, enumerating steps, answers, timing, counts, failures, and sign-off status. This distinguishes it from run_list (listing runs) and run_status (status only) even though no sibling is named 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?

The description implies this is the detailed single-run viewer, and the phrase 'The whole run' signals when to choose it over status or list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 all annotation hints false, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the freeze side effect, the refusal condition, the force bypass, and that exceptions persist and print on the report. This goes well beyond the structured 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 tight sentences front-load the core action and then give the key conditional behavior. No filler or repetition of schema parameter descriptions.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential call path: when it applies, which conditions block it, how force affects it, and what side effects persist. It leaves minor open questions like signing an already-frozen run twice, but the main behavior is covered.

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

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

The input schema already covers all five parameters, so the baseline is met. The description adds consequence-level meaning for force (bypasses refusal) and for note/exceptions (they remain on the record and print), which is not fully stated in 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 opens with a specific action ('Sign off a completed run with a name and a date, which freezes it') and clearly identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling run tools like run_check, run_status, or run_start, which perform different lifecycle actions.

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

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

It states the tool is for completed runs and that normal sign-off is refused while required steps are unanswered or failed unless force is true. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly says when to choose something else, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses an important behavioral trait: steps are copied into the run so later checklist edits do not affect an existing run. It also adds useful context about being free and uncapped, which helps an agent decide to proceed. It does not contradict annotations.

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

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

Three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output are stated first, then the copy-on-start behavior, then the capacity policy. 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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main outcome (returned run ID), a critical behavioral caveat (copy semantics), and usage context (free/uncapped). It does not explain error cases or idempotency, but annotations and schema already provide reasonable guidance.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, and the 'note' parameter remains only length-constrained. This is an acceptable baseline given high schema 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 clearly states the specific action ('Start a dated run'), the resource (a checklist), and the key output (RUN-YYYY-NNNN id). It also distinguishes this from the sibling run_* tools by focusing on creation rather than viewing, deleting, or signing off.

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

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

The description implies when to use this tool: when starting a new dated run of a checklist. It provides a strong usage signal ('Runs are free and never capped') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like run_show or run_list, nor state any when-not-to-use conditions.

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 that the tool changes run state ('Move a run back to open', 'abandon it'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning the tool should not modify the environment. This is a direct contradiction, so the behavioral transparency score must be 1.

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 with no filler. The primary operations and their use cases are front-loaded, and the important signed-off refusal constraint is stated compactly. 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?

For a four-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral constraints: what state transitions are possible, when each is appropriate, and that signed-off runs are refused. It is slightly incomplete on edge-case behavior such as already-open or already-abandoned runs, but the core context is present.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents run, date, note, and status. The description adds a little context for what 'open' and 'abandoned' mean, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond 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?

The description names the exact operations ('Move a run back to open', 'abandon it') and the target resource (a run), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like run_sign_off by stating that a signed-off run is refused. The title and description align with a clear verb+resource structure.

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

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: reopen when a step must be answered again, abandon when the job did not happen. It also gives a when-not: signed-off runs are refused. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as run_sign_off for the normal close path, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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