doraeventfabric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether authentication is required, or if there are any limits or ordering. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the action ('Show') followed by the target ('all routing rules'). Every element earns its place—the parenthetical clarifies the rule format without extra 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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the user what the tool does and what the rules look like (event → action). It does not mention output format or pagination, but given the simplicity, these are likely not needed. Sibling names further contextualize its role.

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 schema is fully covered by default. The description's 'all' reinforces that no filtering parameters exist. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, and the description adds a bit of semantic color by clarifying the rule structure.

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 verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'all routing rules', with an explanatory parenthetical '(event → Conductor action)' that describes the content. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like create_rule (creation) and event_log (event logs).

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 implies the tool is for viewing routing rules, which is a distinct use case from creating rules (create_rule) or checking events (event_log). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative names, though the zero-parameter simplicity makes the usage context fairly obvious.

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 full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' without details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate rules. This is a significant gap 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 short sentence, which is efficient but severely under-specified. It lacks essential context, making it more under-specification than genuine 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description addresses none of these aspects, providing almost no useful context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter meanings. All four parameters (priority, event_type, description, conductor_action) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent with no clues about expected 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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('custom routing rule'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and emit_event by focusing on rule creation, though it doesn't explain what a routing rule does.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. It only states the action without 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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-routing to Conductor, but omits side effects, permissions, failure modes, or response behavior, which is significant for a write/action 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 concise, with a single sentence and a useful list of types. It is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words, though the list is lengthy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the expected contents of detail and entity_id, the meaning of 'auto-routes to Conductor', or what the caller receives as a result.

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

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

The description lists event types, adding value to the event_type parameter. However, detail and entity_id have no schema descriptions and are not explained, leaving 50% of parameters (schema coverage 50%) poorly documented.

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 function: 'Emit an event' with auto-routing to Conductor. It lists specific event types, making the purpose concrete and distinguishing it from siblings like event_log and test_webhook.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to imply usage for sending events. It does not mention exclusions or refer to 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Query' which implies read-only. It does not explain pagination, default limits, ordering, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; while it states the core purpose, it does not earn its place by delivering enough 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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It lacks details on filter usage, defaults, and relationship to sibling tools, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 does not elaborate on any parameters. The phrase 'with filters' is generic and does not explain that available filters include limit, entity_id, and event_type. No additional meaning is added beyond the minimal parameter 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 tool queries event history ('Query event history'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'event_stats', which may also query event data, so it loses a point for lack of sibling 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention event_stats or other event-related tools, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'with filters' implies usage but is vague.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, if any permissions are needed, what the response format looks like, or any rate limiting. The terse description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the fact that statistics are computed.

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 fragment with no filler words. It is concise but perhaps overly terse; the inclusion of the classification dimensions makes it informative enough for a one-liner.

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 annotation, no output schema, and no parameters, so the description must explain what the returned statistics look like. Saying 'by type, source, status' implies dimensions but does not specify whether output is a count, percentage, time series, or other summary. A more complete description would clarify the return structure.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4; nothing is missing.

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 phrase 'Event statistics: by type, source, status' clearly identifies the tool as providing aggregated event statistics broken down by relevant dimensions. Although it lacks an explicit action verb, the intent is unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool event_log by implying aggregated data rather than raw logs.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as event_log. The description only lists aggregation dimensions but does not state whether to use it for overviews, trend analysis, or specific operational purposes.

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Server status.' does not state whether the operation is read-only, what response format to expect, whether it has side effects, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for even a simple 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is a placeholder that does not convey useful information, so it does not earn its place.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description still needs to clarify the exact purpose and behavior. 'Server status.' is ambiguous and does not explain what the tool returns or how it differs from related sibling tools, leaving the agent without adequate context.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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.' is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, so it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Returns server health status'). It also fails to distinguish from sibling tools like ping or webhook_status, which may serve similar 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?

There is no guidance on when to use health_check versus alternatives. The sibling tool list includes ping and webhook_status, suggesting potential overlap, but the description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'View scheduled scans' and does not disclose read-only nature, response format, or any side effects, leaving the agent without deeper 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description states the core purpose adequately. However, with no annotations, it lacks behavioral elaboration (e.g., whether it returns a list, any prerequisites), making it minimally complete but not rich.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; nothing more 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 'View scheduled scans' uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('scheduled scans'), clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like schedule_scan (which creates schedules), 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. It simply states the action without contextual cues.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that only 'active' subscriptions are returned, but it does not state that the operation is safe/read-only, mention authorization needs, or describe the return format. The verb 'show' weakly implies a non-destructive read, but this is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but omits details such as the exact meaning of 'active' and the structure of the returned list. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent expecting more context.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, and no further semantic information 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 a specific action ('show') on a specific resource ('all active subscriptions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by being a list operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and not a tautology.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The read-only nature is implied by 'show', but no context is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or how it fits with other subscription-related tools. This falls short of even implied usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Connectivity test.' It does not disclose what the tool does beyond the name, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise at four words, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is front-loaded, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return value or behavior. 'Connectivity test' is insufficient to understand what the caller would receive or how it differs from health_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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and no compensation is required.

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 'Connectivity test' indicates the tool checks connectivity, but it is vague about what connectivity means (network, service, API). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'health_check', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention health_check or any other context that would help an agent decide between tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Schedule periodic scans' and gives examples; it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, whether existing schedules are overwritten, or how the schedule will be executed. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably creates persistent schedules.

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 and front-loaded with the key action and examples. No wasted words, but it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context. Still, conciseness itself is strong.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify important operational aspects like how to specify a scan name, what entity_id/event_type mean, or how to verify the schedule was created. The examples are helpful but incomplete.

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 only 25% (only cron is described). The description adds minimal context by naming possible scan types, but does not map them to parameters like name or event_type, nor explain entity_id. It fails to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Schedule periodic scans') and provides concrete examples (daily_check, weekly_drift_scan), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_schedules or create_rule, but the examples and verb help distinguish it as a scheduling operation.

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 such as list_schedules or create_rule. The description implies usage for periodic scans, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action without revealing side effects, idempotency, whether duplicate subscriptions are allowed, permission requirements, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for an operation that modifies state.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the main action concisely. However, its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, which is a trade-off. Still, from a purely structural standpoint, it is concise and front-loaded.

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

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It omits any mention of return values, error conditions, side effects, or the meaning of the 'tool' parameter. For a tool that creates a subscription, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description hints at the meaning of 'oracle' and 'event_type' ('Subscribe an oracle to an event type'), but it leaves 'tool' completely unexplained. It also fails to clarify whether parameters are required or how they relate to each other.

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 'Subscribe an oracle to an event type' clearly states the action (subscribe) and the involved resources (oracle, event type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by indicating this is the action to create a subscription. However, it lacks explicit mention of the 'tool' parameter, making the purpose slightly less complete.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'unsubscribe' or 'list_subscriptions'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or additional context like how to use the 'tool' parameter. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Simulate' implies a test action, but there is no disclosure of side effects, whether real webhooks are sent, what routing behavior is exercised, or what happens to event logs.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 three optional params, no annotations, no output schema, and a zero-coverage schema description, the one-line description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or how to interpret results, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

The schema has three parameters with zero description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. The names 'detail', 'entity_id', and 'event_type' hint at their purpose, but the tool description does not explain or differentiate them.

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

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

The description names a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('webhook event'), with a clear purpose ('to test routing'). It is distinct from sibling tools like emit_event and webhook_status, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to them.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like emit_event.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Remove a subscription' without explaining permanence, side effects, or required permissions. This leaves significant ambiguity about the operation's consequences.

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 with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It conveys only the basic action without any additional helpful details, making it too minimal to be considered well-structured.

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 one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the required type or format of subscription_id, what happens on success/failure, or any edge cases. Even for a simple tool, this lacks essential context.

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 a single parameter subscription_id with no description, and the tool description does not explain what this ID refers to or how to obtain it. At 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap.

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

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

The description 'Remove a subscription' uses a specific verb (Remove) and resource (subscription), making it clear this tool deletes a subscription. This distinguishes it from siblings like subscribe (creates) and list_subscriptions (lists), though it does not explicitly mention those 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 guidance is given about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as subscribe or list_subscriptions. The description provides no context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only health check but does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, or response shape. 'Supported types' is vague and could refer to webhook types or event types.

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 brief, which is concise, but it is a colon-separated fragment rather than a structured sentence. It lacks a verb and reads more like a label, so while it's short, it sacrifices clarity.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and what each metric means. It mentions three items but does not specify whether they are counts, booleans, or lists, nor does it clarify the 'supported types' field. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured schema to fall back on.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter usage. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no parameter information is missing.

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

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

The description identifies the resource (webhook health) and lists content areas (events processed, rules active, supported types), but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', making the action ambiguous. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools such as health_check or event_stats, though the 'webhook' scope provides some 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_check or event_stats. The description does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to the agent.

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