resilienceoracle

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 state whether the analysis is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output format is. The minimal text provides no insight into runtime behavior beyond the name.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately short for a tool with no parameters, though it lacks detail that might be considered necessary for effective use.

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 extremely sparse for a tool that performs a specific analysis. It does not explain what 'completeness' means, what inputs or outputs to expect, or how it integrates with the sibling tools. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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

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

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or misleading information about parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'BCM plan completeness analysis' across all systems, indicating a specific analytical action on a defined resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'crisis_plan_check' and 'recovery_status' by focusing on completeness, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate' implies a read-only checking operation, but there is no mention of whether it modifies data, requires permissions, returns a pass/fail result, or produces a report. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, focused sentence that provides the core purpose without redundant wording. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only states the high-level validation purpose. It fails to describe the return value, how validation results are presented, or how the boolean inputs are interpreted, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

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 mention any of the eight boolean parameters. While the parameter names (e.g., media_handling, escalation_matrix) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about what true/false signifies or how these elements relate to the validation. The description only loosely ties them to 'crisis communication plan elements'.

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 ('Validate') and the resource ('crisis communication plan elements') with a specific regulatory reference (Art. 11(7)), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like bcm_gap_analysis or health_check.

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, nor any conditions or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without explaining the appropriate context or alternative 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intent to collect evidence but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it creates a persistent bundle, what the output format is, or if any side effects occur. The categories listed are helpful but do not convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose, immediately followed by the evidence categories. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning its place in its entirety.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete in stating the tool's purpose and content scope. However, it omits any mention of the result format or how the evidence is delivered, and it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving some gaps given the absence of annotations.

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

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

The schema already documents the only parameter (system_id) with a clear description, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context by mentioning the evidence categories but does not further explain the parameter's meaning or usage beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specifies the action ('Collect') and the resource ('BCM/DRP evidence') with a stated purpose ('for audit'). It also enumerates the evidence categories (systems, BIA, test records), making the tool's scope distinct from sibling tools like bcm_gap_analysis or recovery_status, which focus on analysis or status rather than evidence gathering.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or compare with other tools. The only hint is 'for audit', which implies a use case but does not explain when an agent should select this over 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Server status.' does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what response format to expect, or any failure/side-effect behavior. It is not misleading but is almost entirely uninformative.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being more of a label than a description; brevity is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool, but this sacrifices necessary action 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, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns. 'Server status.' does not specify the response structure, success/failure indicators, or any side effects. Given the low complexity, a one-sentence description could suffice, but this one omits essential behavioral details.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters, and with 100% schema description coverage there is nothing left for the description to clarify. The description's silence on parameters is acceptable and the baseline of 4 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 'Server status.' is a noun phrase without an action verb, so it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, check, or report). It largely restates the tool name 'health_check' and provides no resource specificity beyond 'server', failing to distinguish it from the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as recovery_status or crisis_plan_check. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, what data is returned, or how 'DR-ready' is determined. This minimal disclosure leaves critical safety and behavior assumptions unstated.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant or filler content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 parameters, the description should clarify the return format and meaning of 'DR-ready'. Phrases like 'how many systems' suggest a numeric count, but this is ambiguous. An agent would struggle to know what exact data to expect and how to interpret the result, so the description is insufficient for full autonomous invocation.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (an empty schema). The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as there are no parameter ambiguities 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 indicates the tool provides a recovery readiness dashboard with a count of DR-ready systems. It is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like 'health_check' by focusing on DR readiness, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and sibling set.

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 burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate entries, which is critical for a registration/write 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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff or extraneous information. It is concise but extremely sparse given the tool's parameter complexity.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is drastically incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and any behavioral details, making it inadequate 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?

With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify required fields, value formats, or the meaning of fields like criticality, failover_site, or backup_frequency.

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

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

The description explicitly states the action (register), the object (business-critical ICT system), and the purpose (BCM tracking), clearly distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools like bcm_gap_analysis and health_check.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'for BCM tracking,' which implies usage but doesn't explain scenarios.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a validation action but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, or what the response format is. The lack of detail on permissions, output, or failure handling leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is clear and free of extraneous content. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without wasting words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a single input parameter.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter. Despite the simple interface, the description does not explain what the validation returns, whether it checks all systems or one, or what constitutes a successful validation. The lack of output details and edge-case behavior makes it incomplete for a tool that performs a 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 input schema has one optional parameter (system_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or explain its purpose, leaving the agent to infer how to populate it. It adds no value beyond the schema's property name and does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Validate') and clearly identifies the resource (RTO/RPO targets) and the context (against actual backup/failover capabilities). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'recovery_status' or 'bcm_gap_analysis' by focusing on validation of recovery targets.

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: an agent would use this when needing to verify whether recovery targets are feasible. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The purpose is clear enough that a knowledgeable agent could infer appropriate usage, but no direct guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only provides the content type and count, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the severity parameter filters results, or what the return format looks like.

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 and free of redundancy, but it is under-specified, reading as a label rather than a functional specification. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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

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

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what the library returns and how severity works. It does neither, offering only the DORA relevance and scenario count, which is inadequate 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 defines an optional severity parameter with an enum, but the description never mentions severity or its effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter semantics are completely unexplained.

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 as a 'DORA-relevant test scenario library' with 10 scenarios, but lacks a verb specifying the actual operation (e.g., list, retrieve, filter). It distinguishes from sibling tools only via its noun-phrase label, not by stating what it 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling analysis tools, nor any context about selecting scenarios or prerequisites. The description is entirely silent on usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Set') but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing data, requires the system to exist, validates input, or what side effects it may have. No return value or error behavior is described, leaving significant gaps.

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 filler words, which is efficient. However, for a tool with 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is far too sparse; it sacrifices essential detail for brevity, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 high complexity (10 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral transparency. The sibling tools also create a need to clarify how set_bia fits into the BCM workflow, but no such context is provided.

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

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

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description only maps a few acronyms (RTO, RPO, MTPD, financial impact) to some of the 10 parameters. It does not explain units (e.g., rpo_hours), semantics of dependencies, recovery_priority, regulatory_impact, customers_affected, or reputational_impact, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'Business Impact Analysis data' and explicitly names key fields (RTO, RPO, MTPD, financial impact). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_system (system registration) and rto_rpo_check (checking RPO/RTO). Minor ambiguity exists about whether 'Set' implies an upsert or update, but the core purpose 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. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where sibling tools like register_system or recovery_status would be preferred. This is a complete absence of 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Register' implies a write operation, but there is no detail on side effects (e.g., whether a new record is created, whether duplicates are rejected), required permissions, or error behavior. The mention of 'with results and evidence' hints at stored data but does not disclose validation or processing semantics.

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 that immediately states the tool's primary action and key inputs. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is drastically under-specified: it does not explain required parameters, return values, or any of the contextual details needed for an agent to use it effectively. It is incomplete even for a basic registration tool, as it fails to address what the tool returns or how evidence is handled.

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 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'results and evidence' which loosely maps to 'result' and 'evidence_ref', but it does not explain the meaning of other fields like 'rpo_achieved_hours', 'remediation_actions', or 'participants'. The description adds virtually no semantic meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and identifies a clear resource ('a DR/BCM test execution'), with the additional qualifier 'with results and evidence' indicating what information is captured. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bcm_gap_analysis' or 'register_system', which have different purposes.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool might be more appropriate. The only implicit context is that it is for registering test executions, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' direction.

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