dependencyoracle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavior. It mentions 'classification and filters' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. The lack of explicit behavior makes it risky for an agent to invoke.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core concept, though it could be more informative without being verbose, so it earns a high but not perfect conciseness score.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two simple filter parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it returns all assets or only when filters are applied, or any operational details. An agent would not know what to expect from the tool.

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

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

The input schema has two enum parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description's mention of 'classification and filters' gives some context that asset_type and criticality are used for filtering, adding value beyond the bare parameter names. However, it does not explain how the filters interact or any default behavior.

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

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

The description 'Full ICT asset inventory with classification and filters' identifies the resource (ICT assets) but lacks a clear action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It implies a read operation but is vague, and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like register_asset or map_dependency.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as register_asset or dependency_graph.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the calculation purpose and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The behavior beyond the basic calculation is opaque.

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 an clarifying em-dash clause. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information or filler.

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

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

Given the lack of an output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description should at least hint at the return value or behavior. It does not explain what 'blast radius' output looks like (e.g., list of affected entities) or any edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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

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

The schema provides no description for entity_id (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on what an 'entity' is or what format that ID should take. The description only rephrases the parameter's existence, adding minimal semantic value.

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 calculates blast radius and defines it as 'what breaks if this entity fails.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like criticality_score or dependency_graph.

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

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

The usage is implied by the description: one would use this tool when needing to know what breaks if an entity fails. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like impact_simulation or spof_analysis, nor any exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the scoring scale, whether the entity must be pre-registered, or what side effects (if any) occur. The term 'calculate' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicit.

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 one sentence and not verbose, earning points for conciseness. However, it is vague and could benefit from more specifics without becoming longer.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide essential context about the tool's behavior and expected output. It is a minimal description that leaves many unanswered questions.

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 one parameter, entity_id, with no description. The description does not mention entity_id or clarify how it relates to dependencies, classification, and redundancy, leaving the parameter's meaning completely ambiguous.

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 calculates a criticality score and lists the three factors it considers. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like blast_radius or impact_simulation, but the concept of a criticality score is sufficiently distinct.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'dependency tree' returns, whether it includes transitive dependencies, how direction defaults behave, or any constraints such as max_depth handling. This is notably insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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

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

The description is very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get dependency tree'). The em-dash adds the direction scope. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the tool's complexity, though not wordy or redundant.

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

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, a complex output concept (dependency tree), and no annotations or output schema, this minimal description is incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects like default direction, depth semantics, or what the returned structure looks like, especially compared to rich sibling tools like 'impact_simulation'.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely mentions 'upstream/downstream', missing the 'both' enum value and completely omitting max_depth. It does not add meaningful semantic explanation beyond the raw schema field names and types.

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 'Get dependency tree for an entity', which is a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it can show upstream/downstream dependencies. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling 'map_dependency', so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'map_dependency' or 'blast_radius'. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what data the status includes, leaving agents completely in the dark about operational behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it is not a proper sentence and provides minimal semantic substance. It is concise in word count, but lacks the minimal structure expected of a useful tool description.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but still leaves the return format and purpose in very vague terms. It would benefit from stating what the status contains.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 'Server status' clearly names the resource being checked, distinguishing it from siblings like asset_inventory. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the intent is unmistakable.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of suitable contexts, prerequisites, or exclusion of sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'simulate' without disclosing whether the operation has side effects, requires permissions, or what it returns. While 'simulate' hints at a non-destructive analysis, this is not explicitly stated.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence with an em-dash elaboration. Every word earns its place, with no filler.

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

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

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't explain the return value, output format, or behavioral side effects. Given the context signals (1 param, no output schema), a richer description is needed for an AI 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 single parameter (failed_entity) is documented in the schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states a specific action (simulate outage) and the subject (entity failure), with 'cascade impact' adding scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blast_radius or spof_analysis by emphasizing simulation of cascade effects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

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

No usage guidance provided. The description gives no context on when to choose this tool over siblings like blast_radius or dependency_graph, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', which implies mutation, but does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, validation of entity existence, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential details, making it an example of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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

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

The tool has 7 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or any required dependencies or prerequisites. The description is inadequate 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 description coverage is low (29%: only to_id and from_id have descriptions). The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It does not mention criticality, dependency_type, notes, or names, leaving the agent with limited semantic understanding beyond property names.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a dependency link between two entities'). It distinguishes from read-only tools like dependency_graph by implying a write operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This qualifies as 'no guidance' rather than misleading.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Register' and lists asset types, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a record), required permissions, idempotency, or whether duplicate registrations are allowed. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 14 parameters and complex enums. It front-loads the purpose but fails to earn its place as the only textual guidance, being too brief to be 'appropriately sized'.

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 (14 params, 4 enums), lack of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, expected input formats, behavioral nuances, or any operational context. This is effectively just a restatement of the tool's name with a few bullet-point examples.

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

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

The schema has 14 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It only mentions examples of asset types, giving no guidance on fields like 'criticality', 'sla', or 'redundancy'. The agent is left to infer semantics from names and enums alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Register an ICT asset', and provides examples of asset types (application, database, server, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'asset_inventory' or 'register_function'.

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

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

The description implicitly indicates this tool is for registering assets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, any prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clearly delineated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Register'. It does not mention side effects, id generation, required fields (beyond what the schema shows), or any consequences of registration. This is minimal, similar to the 'update_drive' baseline example.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The 'Art. 8' reference is unclear and does not help the agent, while the rest fails to convey 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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. The agent has no information about required versus optional fields, defaults, return values, or any API-specific behavior, making the tool effectively unusable without external documentation.

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

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

The schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description explains none of them. It adds no semantic meaning to parameters like criticality, owner, or function_name, making it impossible to know how to fill them correctly.

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

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

The description specifies a clear verb ('Register') and resource ('ICT-supported business function'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_asset. However, the cryptic 'Art. 8' adds ambiguity and does not clarify the tool's purpose further.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as register_asset or asset_inventory. There are no mentions of conditions, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool detects SPOFs, with no mention of inputs, outputs, side effects, or requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what invoking the tool entails.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence without redundant wording, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'without redundancy' is slightly ambiguous and could have been clearer, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The tool has no parameters or output schema, but the description still does not explain what the output looks like, the meaning of 'without redundancy', or how this analysis differs from related sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to use this tool or another.

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 zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters to document, since there is nothing to clarify.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to detect Single Points of Failure, using a specific verb ('Detect') and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like blast_radius or criticality_score, which may also involve analyzing failure impact, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without redundancy' hints at a condition, but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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