agent-friend

by 0-co

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.207.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., alert_, audit_, batch_), making it easy to distinguish tools from different domains. Within each domain, tool names are distinct and descriptive, minimizing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent domain_domain_action naming pattern (e.g., alert_alert_clear, audit_audit_log). This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate despite the large count.
Tool Count2/5
314 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even one with a broad scope. This number likely overwhelms both agents and users, and many tools may rarely be used. A more focused set would improve usability.
Completeness5/5
The server covers an exceptionally wide range of domains (alerts, audit, batch, crypto, git, etc.) with thorough operation sets (CRUD, advanced queries, analytics). Few obvious gaps exist, making it highly complete for a general-purpose utility server.
Average 3.4/5 across 300 of 314 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on March 20, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it mutates data, error handling for missing fields, or performance implications. The description is too minimal to convey necessary 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise (one line) but at the cost of completeness. While front-loaded with the operation, it omits critical parameter and usage details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the grouping operation's complexity and the lack of schema descriptions or output schema details (though output schema exists), the description is woefully incomplete. No explanation of input format, output structure, error handling, or comparison with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explain parameters 'data' (expected format, e.g., JSON array of objects) or 'field' (which field in objects to group by). No value added beyond bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it groups items by field value and gives output format {group_key: [items]}, distinguishing from siblings like mr_filter or mr_map. However, it could be more precise about what 'items' are (e.g., array of objects) and the data source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., mr_reduce, mr_map). No mention of prerequisites or data format requirements. The description only implies grouping use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the graph doesn't exist, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with '[graph]', but the brevity leads to ambiguity. Not every sentence earns its place because the single sentence lacks crucial information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (likely listing node names), the description does not mention the output format or what data is returned. In a server with many graph tools, this description fails to provide enough context to differentiate and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'name' parameter at all, leaving its role (likely graph name) unclear. No added value beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all node names', but the required 'name' parameter is not explained. The prefix '[graph]' suggests context, but the purpose is ambiguous: does it list nodes for a specific graph or all nodes across graphs? The parameter contradicts 'all'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like graph_graph_edges, graph_graph_ancestors, or graph_graph_add_node. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the conversion and return of '{result}', without details on recursion, collision handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a transformation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description omits essential information. A one-sentence description without parameter explanations or usage context is under-specified, not appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain the input structure, the meaning of 'sep', or the output format, leaving the agent uninformed about critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'record' or 'sep' parameters at all. The 'sep' parameter, which specifies the separator for dot notation, is completely omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool converts dot-notation keys into nested dicts. The verb 'convert' and the resource 'dot-notation keys' are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'transform_transform_flatten' which does the opposite, but does not explicitly mention the inverse relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a sibling tool 'transform_transform_flatten' that performs the inverse operation, but the description does not mention it or provide context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Delete' without disclosing whether the operation is permanent, returns errors for missing keys, or any side effects. Minimal 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified. Lacks structure and fails to provide essential details, making it barely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema details, and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no meaning to 'name' and 'key', failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a specific config key' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling config_config_drop which may also delete, so it's not fully clear without additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like config_config_set or config_config_drop. No context about idempotency, prerequisites, or error handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, default behavior when parameters are null, or output format. It is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but not appropriately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 3 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to provide context about output or parameter usage, making it incomplete for effective agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The agent receives no help understanding what 'n', 'oneline', or 'repo_dir' mean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'show' and resource 'recent commit history', indicating it retrieves git commit log. The '[git]' prefix helps contextualize it. However, 'recent' is ambiguous and could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_git_status or git_git_diff. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (reset counters) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires permissions, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks supporting context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has one required parameter and no parameter description in the schema or description, the description is incomplete. It references a limiter but does not explain how to identify it or what the output represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not mention the required parameter 'name' at all. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer what 'name' refers to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Reset' and identifies the resource 'a limiter's counters' to their initial state. It clearly conveys the core action, though it could better differentiate from sibling tools like rate_limit_limiter_create or rate_limit_limiter_consume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rate_limit_limiter_create or rate_limit_limiter_check. No prerequisites (e.g., limiter must exist) or context for appropriate usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 but provides none. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it may be too brief for a tool with a single parameter. It could include more detail without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (context says yes), the description should indicate what the tool returns. It also lacks info on prerequisites (must be subscribed), making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, and the description only adds 'by name' to the 'name' parameter. This offers minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type and required status.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Remove) and resource (subscribed feed) with a specific parameter (by name). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like rss_subscribe and rss_list_feeds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rss_subscribe or rss_list_feeds. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return format but omits crucial details: whether the selection is uniform or pseudo-random, that seed ensures reproducibility, that the items array must not be empty, and that the operation is non-destructive. These gaps leave the agent uninformed about side effects and guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) but lacks important parameter and behavioral information. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices completeness. Could be expanded slightly to cover parameters without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (though not described), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, edge cases (empty items), randomness properties, and seed usage. A more complete description would enable confident invocation without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not mention 'items' or 'seed' at all. 'items' is required but not described (e.g., type of items, minimum length). 'seed' default is null but no explanation of its role in reproducibility. This is a critical omission for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool picks a single random item and returns the choice and index. The verb 'Pick' and resource 'single random item' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling sampler tools that perform different operations (e.g., split, weighted, shuffle). However, it does not explicitly mention 'from the provided items array', relying on context from the input schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling sampler tools (e.g., sampler_random_split, sampler_sample_weighted). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the items array must be non-empty, or alternatives for weighted or stratified sampling. This lack of usage direction reduces its helpfulness for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'delete an index entirely' which implies a destructive operation, but no annotations are provided. Without annotations, the description should detail side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or impact on other tools. It does not offer such 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. There is no break-down of parameters, return values, or examples. While it wastes no words, it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature and single parameter, the description fails to explain what an 'index' is in this context, what happens after deletion, or how the output schema might signal success/failure. It also does not help differentiate from similar deletion tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention the 'name' parameter at all, leaving the user uncertain about what value to provide (e.g., index ID, name, path). It adds no value beyond the schema's bare existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an index entirely'). The prefix [search_index] and the verb 'drop' align with sibling tools like search_index_index_create, distinguishing it effectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_index_index_delete_doc (which deletes a document, not the entire index). The description lacks any context on prerequisites, common use cases, or scenarios to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only describes the output format but lacks behavioral details such as handling of edge cases, performance implications, or whether the input array can contain nulls or non-numeric values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specifies key aspects. It could include parameter details without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description partially covers return fields. However, the lack of parameter explanation and usage context makes it incomplete for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description provides no information about the 'values' or 'bins' parameters beyond the schema field names. The meaning, constraints, or expected format of these parameters is entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it computes a frequency histogram and returns bins with range, count, and frequency. It uses specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling stats tools like stats_stats_frequency.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, appropriate data types, or scenarios where this tool is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states validation and return type, but omits side effects, authorization needs, or that it is read-only. The description also claims acceptance of lists while the schema only specifies string, creating inconsistency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes words on a redundant '[validator]' prefix. It front-loads the core action but lacks detail. Could be more concise and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description mentions the return format but fails to explain critical aspects like what happens when min_length or max_length are null, or whether the validation is inclusive. The contradiction between accepting 'list' and the schema's string type suggests incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not describe 'value', 'min_length', or 'max_length' beyond their names. The mention of 'string or list' contradicts the schema's string-only type for value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates string or list length, distinguishing it from sibling validators like validate_email or validate_ip. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not specify that validation checks against min and max bounds, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other validators or alternative approaches. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or examples of appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose execution environment (sandboxed?), side effects, state persistence, limits (time, memory), or security implications. Critical details missing for a code execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One-sentence description is concise, but lacks structure (no bullet points, no front-loading of key usage constraints). Adequately short but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of code execution and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context about environment, security, and usage patterns. Incomplete for an agent to invoke safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only that language supports 'python, bash', but does not specify exact valid values or describe the 'code' parameter. Minimal value added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Execute code', the resource 'code', and specifies 'return the output', distinguishing it from system process tools like process_run. Adding explicit supported languages (python, bash) provides clarity on scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like process_run, process_run_script, or batch_builtin_fns. The description does not provide context for preferred usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'convert,' implying a pure transformation, but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid timezone strings), side effects (none expected), or output encoding. The tool likely returns a new string, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear category tag and purpose. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured, perhaps listing the parameters or expected behaviors in a bullet list. Still, the brevity is acceptable for a straightforward conversion tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (though not shown) and three parameters, the description is too minimal to be fully self-contained. It lacks details on accepted datetime formats, timezone identifier standards, and error handling. The agent would need to infer or test these aspects, which could lead to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, meaning the parameter names and types are the only guidance. The description does not explain what values dt_str, to_tz, and from_tz should take, nor what from_tz defaults to. For example, it does not specify that timezone identifiers should be in IANA format (e.g., 'America/New_York'). The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts a datetime string between timezones, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling datetime tools like datetime_add_duration or datetime_diff by focusing on timezone conversion. However, it could be more explicit about the expected input format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that the input should be in a standard format like ISO 8601, or that from_tz is optional and defaults to UTC. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions ordering (oldest first). It does not clarify whether null n means unlimited, error handling for missing topics, or the format of returned events.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details like default behavior of n. The '[event_bus]' prefix is unnecessary clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in retrieving event history, the description should explain the return format and behavior for edge cases. Without output schema details, it is incomplete for informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'topic' and 'n most recent' but does not specify the meaning of null n, topic format, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns recent events for a topic with specified ordering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bus_publish or bus_clear. However, the verb 'Return' is generic; 'Retrieve' or 'Fetch' would be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as bus_stats or bus_subscribe. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Stage files for commit' without explaining side effects, permission requirements, or whether it can unstage. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, but lacks necessary detail for a tool that modifies git state. It is under-specified given the complexity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover common use cases, edge cases, or the effect on the working directory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 explain the meaning or expected format of the 'paths' or 'repo_dir' parameters. It adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stages files for commit, which is a specific git operation. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like git_commit, git_log, etc., but could be more explicit about the concept of staging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like git_status or git_commit. The description does not provide usage context or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation and lists options without explaining edge cases (e.g., empty data, missing field) or side effects. The 'separator' parameter is not described, and the behavior of 'join' or other operations is left implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences, no extraneous words) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity sacrifices critical details, causing a trade-off between conciseness and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify data format, field referencing, separator usage, or behavior on empty/null inputs. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It only lists possible operations but does not explain 'data' (expected format, e.g., JSON array), 'field' (how to reference fields), or 'separator' (usage with 'join'). The description adds virtually no meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Reduce a list to a scalar' and lists valid operations, distinguishing it as the sole reduce tool in the map_reduce group. However, it does not specify how the 'data' and 'field' parameters are used, leaving ambiguity about the expected input format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other reduce tools (e.g., batch_batch_reduce) or alternative approaches. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for the agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Remove... entirely', indicating destructive action, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., irreversible deletion), error states (e.g., limiter not found), or required permissions. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is appropriate for a simple delete operation. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding much length, but it avoids unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not detailed) and no annotations, the description should cover basic behavioral expectations (what happens on success/failure). It does not mention return values or error handling, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description does not explain it. The agent gets no information beyond its type. The description should clarify what constitutes a valid name (e.g., must match an existing limiter).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as a 'named limiter', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create' and 'list' by explicitly indicating deletion. However, it lacks specificity about what 'limiter' means, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., when limiter exists, prerequisites). The description does not mention sibling tools like 'rate_limit_limiter_create' or 'reset'. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the algorithm parameters but does not explain default behavior (e.g., default window), error handling for empty arrays, side effects, or return format. The description is incomplete for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices important details. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description should cover more aspects like default window, data handling, and return structure. The current description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' and 'alpha' but not 'values' or 'window'. Missing details like window size meaning, data type expectations for values, and defaults. Only partial parameter information is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes moving averages and specifies two kinds (SMA and EMA). The verb 'Moving average' combined with '[stats]' prefix indicates the purpose, distinguishing it from sibling stats tools like correlation or histogram. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use moving average vs other stats tools, or when to choose SMA versus EMA. No exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'define' without explaining side effects (e.g., persistence, validation, or dependencies). It also fails to describe the return value or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (2 sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be structured better (e.g., grouping conditions vs. parameters) to improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema documentation, the description is incomplete. It omits details about non-required parameters, the return value, and behavioral context. An output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only lists condition operators and severity values. It does not explain how to use parameters like 'threshold', 'threshold_high', 'message', 'metric', or 'cooldown_s', leaving their semantics ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Define a named alert rule' which clearly indicates the action and resource. It lists condition operators and severity levels, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like alert_alert_evaluate or alert_alert_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as alert_alert_evaluate, alert_alert_get, or other alert-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format but fails to mention error handling (e.g., rule not found), side effects, or behavioral traits beyond the return. With no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence plus return format, front-loading the core purpose. While the '[alert]' prefix is slightly redundant, there is no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the rules system, prerequisites, and side effects. Given 3 parameters and an output schema, more information on parameter usage and behavioral context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies the purpose of 'name' and 'value' parameters but does not explain 'metadata' or provide type/format details. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate, but it falls short.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'evaluate a value against a named rule' and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes from sibling alert tools (like alert_alert_get or alert_alert_list) by focusing on evaluation, but does not explicitly contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as alert_alert_get for retrieving rule results. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for evaluation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It only states that it records an event and returns a structured object, but omits critical details such as whether the operation is idempotent, requires authentication, or has side effects on other audit tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief—only one sentence plus the return shape. Every word adds value, though the brevity sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. The agent lacks information to correctly construct the input, especially for optional parameters like 'metadata' and 'severity'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. For example, it does not clarify acceptable values for 'event_type', the expected format for 'actor' and 'resource', or how 'metadata' or 'severity' affect the audit entry.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Record a structured audit event') and the return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_audit_get and audit_audit_search, which are read/query operations. However, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, or when not to use it. For example, it does not mention when to use audit_audit_statistics or audit_audit_export instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the output is a JSON object representing all config, which implies a read operation. With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info, but it lacks details on potential side effects, performance, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it omits essential information about the parameter. While brevity is positive, the lack of completeness reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a single required parameter that is not explained, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists but is not detailed, and the description adds no extra context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a required 'name' parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description fails to explain what 'name' refers to, leaving the parameter's role completely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Export all config' and the output format 'as a JSON object', making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not provide differentiation from sibling tools like config_config_get or config_config_list, which may also retrieve config data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 config_config_get for specific keys. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as error handling on invalid inputs, default behavior when fmt or timezone is null, or any side effects. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, lean sentence with a helpful category tag [datetime]. It front-loads the core action. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail; however, this is more under-specification than lack of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return value details are not required, but the description must cover parameter semantics and usage context. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only faintly hints at the 'fmt' parameter by mentioning 'strftime format'. It does not explain the expected format of 'dt_str', the role of 'timezone', or constraints. Insufficient parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Format' and the resource 'datetime string', using a specified method (strftime format). It adequately distinguishes from sibling tools like datetime_parse or datetime_add_duration by indicating the nature of formatting. However, it does not explicitly mention the output type (formatted string), which would make it a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given multiple datetime siblings (e.g., datetime_parse, datetime_convert_timezone), the description should indicate appropriate scenarios, but it lacks such context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic conversion. With no annotations, it should discuss edge cases, timestamp format (e.g., seconds vs milliseconds), and timezone handling, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a front-loaded category tag, making it concise but lacking necessary details. It fits the minimal pattern but does not earn its place fully.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, optional timezone, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It mentions the output format but omits input validation, timezone semantics, and conversion assumptions, which are critical for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no information about the parameters 'timestamp' (expected format, numeric vs string) or 'timezone' (expected format like 'UTC' or 'America/New_York'). It adds no value beyond the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'Unix timestamp to an ISO 8601 datetime string,' distinguishing it from siblings like datetime_to_timestamp (reverse) and datetime_parse (string parsing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as datetime_to_timestamp or datetime_parse. The description assumes the user knows when a Unix timestamp to datetime conversion is needed, offering no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose supported input formats, error handling behavior, or how the default_timezone parameter affects parsing. The agent is left guessing about edge cases and failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief. While not verbose, it sacrifices valuable information. A slightly longer but more informative description would be better.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (implied), the description does not mention return values or structure. Combined with missing behavioral details and parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the purpose or format of the 'text' parameter or the 'default_timezone' parameter. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'date/time string', and specifies the output 'return ISO 8601'. It is distinct from sibling tools like datetime_add_duration and datetime_convert_timezone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use datetime_parse vs datetime_format_dt or datetime_from_timestamp. Missing context about prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic purpose without detailing recursion behavior, default path, symlink handling, or return value structure. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It includes a bracketed category '[file]' that may aid categorization but does not provide essential operational information. While not verbose, it is under-specified for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., what path=None means), how pattern works, or the output format despite the existence of an output schema. The agent lacks context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explain either parameter. The path parameter is self-explanatory, but the pattern parameter's purpose (likely a filter) is not mentioned. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List files and directories at a given path' clearly states the action (list), the resource (files and directories), and a constraint (at a given path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_file_read or file_file_write, which handle file content operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage guidance, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browse_browse or search), or when not to use it. It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavior of multiplying ratios (|v| < 1) by 100, which is important for correct usage. However, it lacks details on handling values greater than 1, negative values, or the effect of the 'decimals' and 'include_sign' parameters. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of one sentence and an example. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and example, but could benefit from a more structured breakdown of parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an assumed output schema, the description is too brief to fully enable correct invocation. Missing critical details about optional parameters and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the purpose or allowed values of the 'decimals' or 'include_sign' parameters. The example implies 'decimals' might control the number of decimal places, but it is not explicit. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool formats a number as a percent, with an example (0.87 → '87.0%') and explains the scaling behavior for ratios. It distinguishes itself from other format tools within the sibling group by specifying percent formatting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternative formatting tools like format_format_number. It does not mention any preconditions or scenarios where this tool is particularly appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose what happens if no staged changes exist, whether the command pushes to remote, or what the output schema contains. It fails to add behavioral context beyond the minimal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and to the point, but at the cost of missing critical information. It is not verbose, but the minimalism reduces utility. No structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (though output schema exists) or handle edge cases (e.g., no staged changes). The agent would lack sufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'message', ignoring the optional 'repo_dir' parameter. It does not explain the role of 'repo_dir' or any constraints on 'message', leaving the agent without sufficient context to fill parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it commits staged changes with a message, using a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('staged changes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_git_add (which stages changes) and git_git_diff (which shows differences).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (staged changes must exist) or when not to commit (e.g., if changes are unstaged). Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic operation, failing to mention that the tool is a read-only operation, how the staged parameter affects output, or whether changes are unstaged or staged. No safety or side-effect information is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits parameter details or usage context. While not verbose, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of git diff (see siblings like git_git_log, diff_diff_text), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the effect of the staged flag, the meaning of path, or the output format despite an output schema being present. Agents lack critical usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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, and the description does not explain any parameter (staged, path, repo_dir). Agents cannot infer the meaning or defaults from the text, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Show changes') and scope ('working tree or staging area'), using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like git_git_status (which shows state) and git_git_log (which shows history).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., git_git_status or diff_diff_text), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not state whether adding an existing node replaces or errors, whether it triggers side effects, or safety considerations. Only implies a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with context tag '[graph]'. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to cover essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a graph operation with 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema details in description, the tool lacks completeness. No mention of error conditions, return value interpretation, or dependency on graph existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). Description adds only that 'meta' is an optional dict. The 'name' and 'node' parameters are unexplained, though their titles suggest purpose; still, meaning is minimally added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it adds a node to a graph with optional metadata. The '[graph]' prefix and the verb 'Add' distinguish it from sibling tools like graph_graph_add_edge or graph_graph_create, but it could explicitly mention that the 'name' parameter identifies the graph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., graph_graph_create for a new graph, graph_graph_remove_node for removal). No mention of prerequisites like the graph must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Delete a graph' implies destructive action, but no details about cascading effects, reversibility, or permissions are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with one sentence. While it is not verbose, it could include more useful context without becoming wordy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, preconditions, or typical usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer that 'name' is the graph identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'graph'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_graph_create or graph_graph_list. However, it could be more specific by noting the need for a graph name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., graph_graph_remove_node). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for safe use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Remove a directed edge' but does not address edge cases (e.g., non-existent edge, graph not found), side effects, or return values. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the '[graph]' prefix consistent across sibling tools, making it easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of graph operations and the presence of many sibling graph tools, the description lacks details on output, error handling, and usage context. Even with an output schema, the description does not explain return behavior or consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no explanation for the three parameters (name, src, dst). An agent cannot infer meanings beyond the parameter names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'name' could be graph name or edge name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'directed edge', distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph_graph_add_edge. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what constitutes a directed edge in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as graph_graph_add_edge or graph_graph_remove_node. There are no mentions of prerequisites or conditions under which removal is valid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states output, no info on side effects, existence requirements, or auth needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence, but omits essential details about parameter and usage. Could be expanded without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the input parameter. Incomplete for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter 'name' has 0% schema coverage, and the description does not explain what it represents (e.g., graph name or ID). Requires inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns node count, edge count, and node list. Distinguishes from siblings like graph_graph_nodes and graph_graph_edges by combining counts and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic operation but omits behavioral traits like side effects, input validation, nesting handling, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. It could benefit from additional structure like bullet points, but it efficiently communicates the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness. It does not address input format, nesting behavior, or how it differs from similar tools like transform_flatten, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'data' of type string with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter meaning or expected format (e.g., JSON array).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool flattens a list of lists into a single list, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like map_reduce_mr_map and map_reduce_mr_reduce but lacks depth detail (e.g., one level only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives like transform_flatten, nor any context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should explain behavior beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is in-place or returns new data, how missing fields are handled, or what the output format is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the category but provides no additional sections or details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of many related map_reduce tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain input/output format, edge cases, or how it differs from other field selection tools like transform_pick.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explain the parameters. It mentions 'specified fields' but doesn't clarify that fields is an array or describe the data parameter's expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Keep only specified fields in each dict item.' It uses the category prefix [map_reduce] and is distinct from siblings like mr_filter or mr_map, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like mr_filter or transform_pick. No mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that 'fields limits which keys are indexed' but does not disclose behavior like idempotency, error handling, or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing indices). Minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and includes a useful prefix '[search_index]'. It is concise without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (creation tool with 2 params), zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent lacks sufficient info to use the tool correctly, despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'fields limits which keys are indexed', which adds minimal meaning. No details on format, constraints, or default behavior for either 'name' or 'fields'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a named document index with the verb 'Create' and specifies the resource (document index). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_index_index_add or search_index_index_search, but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 search_index_index_create vs. search_index_index_add or search_index_index_search. The description lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should explain behavioral aspects like destructiveness, error conditions, or side effects. It only states 'Remove', omitting details on what happens if the document doesn't exist or if the index doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but this conciseness sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not well-structured to provide useful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the index system, valid document IDs, and error handling. The tool is simple but the description is still too sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of what 'name' (presumably index name) or 'doc_id' represent. The agent has to infer meaning from parameter titles alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a document by its _id', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_index_index_add and search_index_index_list_docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or prerequisites for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or output format. It only states the output fields but does not mention any limitations or side effects. The tool's behavior is underspecified 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices helpful detail. The '[search]' prefix adds little value. It is not excessively long but fails to provide necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unknown), the description should cover parameter meaning and basic behavior. It only provides a high-level purpose, missing crucial details like parameter descriptions and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does not mention the 'query' parameter (the search term) or 'max_results' (result limit), leaving the agent without understanding their roles beyond names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search the web') and the return fields ('titles, URLs, and snippets'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'search_index_index_search' which suggests internal searches, and 'fetch_fetch' which fetches a specific URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'search_index_index_search' or 'fetch_fetch'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'define an allowed transition,' omitting side effects, whether it overwrites existing transitions, validation, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the category prefix. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required params, no annotations, no output schema shown), the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or necessary preconditions like existence of the state machine.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no parameter explanations. It hints at 'from' and 'to' states but does not explain the 'name' parameter, which is critical for distinguishing transitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it defines an allowed transition, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sm_trigger (executes transition) and sm_can (checks permission), but the differentiation is implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sm_trigger. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., state machine must exist) or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It minimally states 'reset and restart' but does not explain side effects, error conditions, or what happens to existing timer state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it could benefit from slight expansion to include context or a structured format. It is not verbose, but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the existence of many sibling timer tools, the description is too brief. It does not mention return values, preconditions, or how the tool fits into the timer workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is required, but the description provides no additional meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gains no insight into what value the name should take or how it is used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset and restart a timer' uses a specific verb and resource, making the action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like timer_timer_start, which also starts a timer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as timer_timer_start or timer_timer_stop. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description does not disclose critical behaviors like error handling on missing keys, idempotency, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and a front-loaded context marker, but it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits return values, error conditions, and any behavioral notes, making it incomplete even for a single-key deletion operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'key' has no description in either the schema (0% coverage) or the tool description, leaving its meaning entirely to the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (a single key from the cache), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cache_cache_clear which removes all keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 cache_cache_clear, or what happens if the key does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the core function and a filtering feature. It does not mention whether the operation overwrites existing config, requires any special permissions, or handles errors. This is minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the domain tag '[config]' and the core action. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context for a 4-parameter tool. It does not explain the purpose of all parameters, the effect on config state, error conditions, or return value expectations. The tool requires more description to be fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters but 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The description only explains the 'prefix' parameter ('prefix filters by prefix'), leaving 'name', 'strip_prefix', and 'lowercase' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to set parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load environment variables into config') and specifies a key feature ('prefix filters by prefix'). It distinguishes itself from sibling config tools (e.g., config_config_get, config_config_set) by focusing on environment variable loading. A 4 is warranted as it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like config_config_set or config_config_require. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Without this, an agent may misuse the tool or choose a less appropriate one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions dot-notation and return value but does not explain overwrite behavior, side effects, prerequisite (e.g., config store must exist), or error cases. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence plus return type). It is front-loaded with the action and feature (dot-notation). However, it could benefit from brief parameter hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, behavior on existing keys, store requirements, and error handling. The return value is mentioned but only partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (name, key, value) beyond their names. It does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., config store) or the expected format of 'key' or 'value'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'config key', distinguishing it from siblings like config_config_get or config_config_delete. It also mentions dot-notation support, adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other config tools (e.g., config_config_defaults, config_config_load_env) or when not to use it. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool runs a SELECT query and returns results, but fails to mention potential side effects (none expected), performance implications, error handling, or security considerations. The output format is vaguely described as 'table of rows' without detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it omits important details about parameters and usage, making it under-specified. The '[database]' prefix adds context but does not compensate for missing structure or clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (executing SQL queries) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify that only SELECT queries are allowed, how results are returned, any limitations on query complexity, or how to use the optional 'params' parameter. The tool's capabilities are underdescribed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for missing parameter semantics. While the description mentions running a SQL SELECT query, it does not explain the 'params' parameter, which is crucial for parameterized queries. The 'sql' parameter is implied but not elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a SQL SELECT query and returns results as a table of rows. It identifies the specific type of SQL operation (SELECT) and the output format, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like database_db_execute. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other database tools beyond that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is for read-only querying by specifying 'SELECT query', but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like database_db_execute. It lacks context about invocation conditions or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation without mentioning return type, timezone handling, or error cases. The agent has insufficient information about the tool's behavior beyond the core function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be restructured to include critical parameter info without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (true), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks crucial context such as expected input format or whether subtraction is achieved via negative values. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not describe dt_str format (e.g., ISO 8601) or valid ranges for duration components. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional semantic value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add (or subtract) a duration to a datetime' clearly identifies the action (add/subtract) and the resource (datetime). It distinguishes this tool from sibling datetime tools like datetime_convert_timezone or datetime_format_dt, though it could be more specific about the input format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 datetime_diff or datetime_parse. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without revealing behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, or return value. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to describe what happens after unsubscription.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's category. It avoids verbosity, but the lack of content prevents a higher score for value-add.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple unsubscription tool with output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain expected behavior (e.g., does it throw error if topic/subscriber doesn't exist?), return values, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'topic' and 'subscriber'. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify required format, constraints, or differences from other tools with similar parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unsubscribe from a topic' clearly states the action and resource. It uses a specific verb and resource, unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like event_bus_bus_subscribe or event_bus_bus_publish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or when not to use. There is no mention of context or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states output. No mention of side effects, performance, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, but it lacks detail. Could be more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing crucial details like error cases, preconditions, and input constraints. Output schema exists but description is too sparse for a graph algorithm tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description gives no additional meaning for the 'name' parameter beyond its type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it checks for cycles in a graph and returns a boolean. It is distinct from sibling tools like topo_sort or path finding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., topo_sort). No context on prerequisites like graph existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral details. It only states what is returned, but does not cover error cases (e.g., invalid pattern), performance, or default behavior for flags. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and return structure. Front-loaded with key information, though could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the return description is adequate, but missing context on flags, error handling, and performance. Incomplete for a regex tool with multiple parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. The flags parameter is not described, and pattern/text are only implied. Fails to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns all matches with positions and groups, differentiating from siblings like regex_regex_findall or regex_regex_match. The return format is explicitly listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention scenarios for choosing this over regex_regex_findall or regex_regex_extract_groups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'reset', implying a state change, but does not specify if it is idempotent, if it can fail, or what side effects occur. Lacks safety and idempotency details for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a category prefix. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative within the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, state mutation, no output schema visible) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough context to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanation for the 'name' parameter. The description does not clarify that 'name' is the identifier of the circuit breaker. With no schema descriptions, the tool's documentation fails to convey what the parameter represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'reset' on a 'circuit breaker' to a specific state ('closed/normal'). It distinguishes from siblings like retry_circuit_call, retry_circuit_create, and retry_circuit_status which handle different operations on circuit breakers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for proper usage. It assumes the agent knows the circuit breaker pattern well. The description does not mention when a reset is appropriate (e.g., after a timeout or manual decision).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only mentions the return value without disclosing side effects, error handling, or permissions. Minimal behavioral disclosure 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, but the '[vector_store]' prefix is redundant with the tool name. Still, it is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description partially covers the return value, but lacks details on error behavior, prerequisite conditions, or operational impact. Adequate for a simple operation but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond naming 'doc_id' implicitly. 'name' parameter is unexplained. Fails to compensate for low schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a vector by ID, but does not differentiate from the sibling 'vector_store_vector_drop', missing an opportunity to clarify when to use which.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vector_store_vector_drop' or 'vector_store_vector_get'. The description is silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It only states basic action without disclosing error behavior, idempotency, or permissions required. Minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loaded with key action. Concise, but slightly underspecified for the context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present, return values are covered. However, missing parameter descriptions and behavioral context make it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and description does not explain parameters 'name' (store name?) or 'doc_id' (vector ID?). No added meaning beyond field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'vector and its metadata by ID'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vector_store_vector_list or search, which also retrieve vectors but differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling vector tools, explicit context on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like destructive nature. It only states 'Delete' but does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, or permission requirements, leaving the agent underinformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could include more essential details without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (unknown content), the description does not hint at what the tool returns or any side effects. For a deletion tool, this is insufficient to guide an agent on expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'name' beyond what the schema provides (a required string). No format or constraints are indicated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a workflow by name,' with a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('workflow'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'workflow_workflow_get' or 'workflow_workflow_define' by the action of deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as whether the workflow must exist or if there are prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only mentions the return format. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., state changes), error handling, or authorization needs. The return structure is provided, but that's minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence plus return format), which is concise. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks structure like bullet points or sections, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be defined), error behavior, or the meaning of fields like 'steps' and 'elapsed_ms'. The output schema exists but is undetailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only hints at 'input data' for the input parameter, but name and context are unexplained. No parameter descriptions exist, and the description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run a workflow on input data' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like workflow_workflow_define or workflow_workflow_list by focusing on execution. The return format is also specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use workflow_workflow_define first). The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, performance implications, or side effects. It only mentions return shape but no behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy. The prefix '[audit]' categorizes it clearly. The first sentence states the action, the second lists filters and return structure. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details (limit/offset), filter combination logic, and data types for after/before. The output schema exists but is not elaborated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists 8 of 10 parameters (omits limit and offset), adding some meaning by grouping them as filters. However, it lacks explanations of valid values or how filters combine, so adds only minimal semantics beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool filters the audit log and lists the filters. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_audit_log by implying search functionality, but could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_audit_log or audit_audit_stats. The description does not provide context for when filtering is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, how data is computed, or any side effects. The description is too minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence that front-loads the core functionality. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite many sibling tools and an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations, usage guidance, and behavioral context. A complete description would explain parameters and suggest when to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters 'after' and 'before'. It only lists grouping dimensions, leaving parameter meaning entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides aggregate stats grouped by five specific dimensions (type, actor, resource, severity, outcome). This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_audit_log (raw logs) and audit_audit_timeline (time-based).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. It does not mention filter parameters (after, before) or contrast with other audit tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only mentions the return format. It does not explain what happens when bucket is null, the format of after/before, or any constraints like inclusive/exclusive boundaries. The behavior is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence plus return shape. It is front-loaded with purpose and efficient. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover parameter meanings without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of parameter types, defaults, and the time range interpretation. The output shape is provided, but the input behavior is underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only hints that 'bucket' refers to hour or day. It does not explain the allowed values for bucket, the meaning of after/before (timestamps? seconds?), or that they are optional. The description adds little beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool buckets audit events by hour or day for trend analysis, distinguishing it from other audit tools that list, search, or provide stats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling like audit_audit_stats, but the purpose is still clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for trend analysis over time but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The phrase 'volume of events over time' is implied but not stated directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides basic return format but does not disclose edge case behavior (e.g., empty list, null size) or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. No annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the action. However, it may be too terse, omitting important details like default behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is partially adequate but lacks usage guidelines and edge case handling. The many sibling tools increase the need for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that 'size' controls batch size, but does not clarify the default behavior (null size) or validate assumptions. Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds some value but not enough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Split a list into batches of size' with the return format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like chunker_chunk_by_separator or chunker_chunk_sliding_window, which also split lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many chunker siblings, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Delete an entire named config store' without detailing irreversible consequences, required permissions, or side effects. Given no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with a category prefix. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could include more useful context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation that deletes an entire config store, the description lacks crucial context about risks, rollback options, and expected output. With an output schema present but not described, the description does not adequately prepare an agent for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter 'name', the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't clarify what 'name' expects, e.g., must match an existing store. Baseline would be 3 if coverage were higher, but here it's low and description doesn't compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (entire named config store), distinguishing it from sibling tools like config_config_delete which likely deletes a specific key. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_config_delete for individual keys. No prerequisites, consequences, or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description indicates a read operation ('List') but fails to explain the required 'name' parameter's role or behavior (e.g., whether it refers to a config store or scope). No annotations provided, leaving the agent unsure about side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single-sentence description that front-loads the verb 'List'. It provides the category '[config]' and core functionality without excess. However, it could be slightly expanded to clarify parameters without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex config tool ecosystem and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It does not differentiate from config_config_list_stores, explain what 'name' refers to, or mention output format. Output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. The mention of 'filtered by prefix' partially explains the optional prefix parameter, but the required 'name' parameter is entirely undefined. This omission leaves a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List all keys' with optional prefix filter. Tool name 'config_config_list' aligns well with its purpose, and it distinguishes from siblings like config_config_get (which retrieves a specific key) and config_config_set (which sets a key).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as config_config_get (for a specific key) or config_config_list_stores (to list stores). The description lacks when-not advice or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool computes a difference but does not mention the output format, whether it supports time zones, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a calculation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and to the point. The '[datetime]' prefix may be redundant but does not harm clarity. It could be slightly more efficient without the prefix, but overall it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With low parameter documentation and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input semantics are insufficiently explained. For a simple tool, the description should at least mention the unit parameter's possible values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description implies two datetime strings but does not explain the 'unit' parameter (optional, default null). This leaves the agent guessing about how to specify the unit for the difference. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes the absolute difference between two datetime strings. The verb 'Compute' and resource 'difference between two datetime strings' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like datetime_add_duration, datetime_convert_timezone, and datetime_parse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description simply states the function without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like default fill (space?), truncation policy, and error handling. It only mentions padding and alignment, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no redundant words. The category prefix '[format]' and direct phrasing efficiently convey the core action and key parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a 4-parameter tool. It omits default behaviors, error scenarios, and the purpose of the 'fill' parameter, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for the 'align' parameter by listing valid values (left/right/center) but does not explain the 'fill' parameter or the unit of 'width'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, more parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool pads text to a specified width and mentions alignment options, distinguishing it from other format tools like format_format_truncate or format_format_number. However, it could be more explicit about the default padding character and behavior when text exceeds width.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. With many sibling format tools, the agent lacks context for selection. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 a new branch' but does not mention behavior if the branch already exists, whether checkout occurs by default, or any side effects like switching branches. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks essential details like parameter explanations and side effects. It is adequately short but under-specifies, making it minimally viable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 description of return values (despite having an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases, prerequisites, or the meaning of optional parameters, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds only 'from the current HEAD' which gives context for the branch creation but does not explain the purpose of 'name', 'checkout', or 'repo_dir'. The agent gains little insight beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new branch from the current HEAD,' which specifies the action (create), resource (branch), and source (current HEAD). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_git_branch_list or git_git_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as git_git_branch_list or git_git_commit. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., repo must exist, no uncommitted changes).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as performance, error handling (e.g., missing node), or whether it is read-only. Output schema exists but is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it omits useful details, making it slightly too terse for a tool with no other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or when to use this specific graph traversal. For a 2-parameter tool with output schema, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. However, the description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'name' and 'node' beyond their names. The agent is left guessing the format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Return all nodes that can reach the given node,' which is a specific verb (return) and resource (ancestor nodes). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'graph_graph_descendants' which returns reachable nodes from the given node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like descendants or path. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'create' but omits side effects like whether creation overwrites an existing graph, requires specific permissions, or results in a persistent graph. This lack of detail reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information, making it slightly less effective than a well-balanced description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (details unknown) and is a fundamental creation tool, the description fails to explain the return value, the default state of the graph, or how it integrates with other graph tools. This incompleteness limits the agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'name' parameter is documented only in the schema with just a title. The description adds no additional meaning, such as constraints on uniqueness, format, or character restrictions. With 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('named directed graph'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling graph tools such as graph_graph_delete or graph_graph_add_edge. It directly conveys the tool's primary function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as graph_graph_add_node or graph_graph_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, error scenarios (e.g., duplicate name), or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it handles cycles, or if it returns duplicates. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer that it's a safe query.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing brevity (e.g., mentioning the graph context).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of graph traversal and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, potential errors, or behavior with cycles, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters lack descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain 'name' (graph identifier) or 'node' (starting node), adding no meaning beyond the schema parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return all nodes reachable from the given node' provides a clear verb and resource, and the prefix '[graph]' sets context. It effectively distinguishes from sibling graph tools like graph_graph_ancestors (reverse direction) and graph_graph_path (specific route).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 graph_graph_path or graph_graph_ancestors, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist, node must be valid).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates read-like behavior and return format, but lacks details on preconditions, error handling (e.g., if no path exists), or side effects. The return field 'reachable' hints at behavior, but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and direct, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and mentions return format. While minimal, it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required params, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by return description), the description is incomplete. It does not explain graph context, node identifiers, or error scenarios. Users may need additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. No guidance on valid node identifiers or graph naming conventions. The schema fields are self-explanatory but lack additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it finds the shortest path from src to dst and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes from sibling graph tools like cycle detection or topological sort.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other graph tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist, nodes must be present). The context does not provide when-not or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation and return type. It does not specify error handling for missing keys, type mismatches, invalid JSON, or the behavior when no items match. The description fails to cover important edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence with a clear structure: [context] + action + condition + return type. It front-loads the purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary details for brevity, making it borderline too minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema, the return type is covered. However, the tool has 3 required string parameters with no format specifications or examples. The description does not address common pitfalls or provide enough context for an AI agent to reliably use the tool without errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'data' is a JSON array (though in string format) and that 'key' and 'value' are used for filtering. However, it does not specify the expected format of the input string (e.g., must be valid JSON array) or provide examples. It adds marginal value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool filters a JSON array by key-value equality. It specifies an action (filter), resource (JSON array), and condition (key equals value). It is distinct from siblings like table_table_filter (which works on tabular data) and batch_batch_filter (which works on batch items), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. other filtering tools (e.g., batch_batch_filter, map_reduce_mr_filter). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. An AI agent would have no context to decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific data formats, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence plus operator list). It is front-loaded with the tool category, but it lacks structure and important details, making it too terse for full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema but no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input data format, expected output, or how the filter behaves with different operators (e.g., 'exists' ignoring value).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Only the 'operator' parameter gets meaningful explanation (list of operators). The 'data', 'field', and 'value' parameters are not described, leaving ambiguity about format and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it keeps items based on field-operator-value comparison. It distinguishes from sibling map_reduce tools (map, reduce, group, sort) by explicitly naming the filter action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., table_table_filter or other filters). No mention of prerequisites or context where this filter is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions default ascending order. Lacks details on stability, mutability, handling of nulls, or whether the input is modified or returned as new array.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key info. However, it is overly brief given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover error conditions, input validation, or edge cases. With no annotations, more context is needed for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; the tool description adds only a hint about the 'reverse' parameter via 'ascending by default'. Does not explain 'data' (expected format: JSON array string) or 'field' (field name syntax).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sorts a JSON array by a field, with ascending default. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like mr_filter, mr_group, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use sorting vs other operations. No mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over alternatives, or what scenarios are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions 'persistent memory' but does not disclose behaviors like overwriting existing keys, return values, or side effects such as potential for key collisions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) with a helpful '[memory]' prefix for categorization. However, it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a storage tool; it does not mention the return value (despite having an output schema) or handle edge cases like duplicate keys. The simplicity of the tool does not fully excuse the lack of important operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description only vaguely implies that 'key' is an identifier and 'value' is the fact. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Store a fact in persistent memory' which specifies the action (store) and the resource (memory). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_recall and memory_forget by nature of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like memory_recall or memory_forget. It lacks explicit context for use cases or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the core action and reliability, but fails to disclose important behaviors like file creation, permissions handling, concurrency, or what happens when the file does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a short additional sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient and without fluff, though some important details are omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the three parameters and no annotations, the description lacks crucial information: default path behavior, return value (though output schema exists), error handling, and file location conventions. The context about 'no display required' helps, but overall it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'notification entry' implying title and message are its content, but does not clarify path (default null) nor provide format details. The semantics are minimally inferred.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool appends a notification entry to a JSONL log file, specifying the format and action. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'no display required', but doesn't explicitly compare to other notify tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Reliable across all environments — no display required' gives context for when this tool is appropriate (headless environments), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclude conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Minimal disclosure; only says 'delete entirely' implying permanence, but lacks detail on irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on non-empty queues. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks important context such as deletion being irreversible, whether the queue must exist, or any side effects. Leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. Description does not add any meaning or format guidance for the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Delete a queue entirely,' which is specific and distinguishes from similar tools like queue_queue_clear (clear items) and queue_queue_create (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or consequences of deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it generates random floats in [low, high) and returns a result object with a 'values' key. However, it does not specify the distribution (uniform), precision control via decimals, or the effect of seed. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it offers only basic behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence with a category tag. It is front-loaded with '[sampler]' for context. While efficient, it sacrifices detail that could be included without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no required, and an output schema exists, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format beyond '{values}', nor does it cover the 'decimals' and 'seed' parameters. The lack of schema coverage makes the description inadequate for a tool with this parameter count.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions low, high, and n. The 'decimals' and 'seed' parameters are entirely undocumented. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names for low, high, and n.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates n random floats in [low, high) and returns {values}. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sampler_random_int and sampler_random_choice by specifying floats and interval range. However, it could be more explicit about the output format beyond '{values}'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as sampler_random_int for integers or sampler_random_choice for discrete selection. No mention of seeding for reproducibility or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Remove a scheduled task', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., what if task is running), required permissions, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is slightly too brief given the lack of context from annotations and schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns after removal or error conditions. It lacks completeness for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'task_id' parameter beyond 'by id'. It omits format, usage examples, or how to obtain valid IDs, providing minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a scheduled task') and the method ('by id'). It distinguishes from siblings like scheduler_schedule_task (adds) and scheduler_list_scheduled (lists), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scheduler_clear_all). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for proper invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only mentions pagination but omits important behavioral traits like auth requirements, error handling, default limit, ordering, or whether it returns all documents. Too sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (single sentence) with front-loaded verb and resource, but it is too brief to be optimally useful. It could add a bit more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what the paginated list returns or explain the parameters. For a 3-param list tool with no schema descriptions, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain parameters name, limit, or offset. It only implies that 'name' is the index name via the [search_index] prefix, but no explicit semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'documents in an index', and notes pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_index_index_list' (list indices) and 'search_index_index_search' (search documents).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_index_index_search or search_index_index_list. No exclusions or contextual hints provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'Delete' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether deletion is irreversible, if associated data (transitions, history) are affected, or if the operation requires confirmation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single declarative sentence. It could benefit from slightly more detail, but it is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the sparse schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or how the tool fits into the broader state machine workflow. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'name', but the description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., state machine name, identifier, or path). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a state machine'), precisely identifying what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling state machine tools like sm_create or sm_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., state machine must exist), and no mention of consequences like irreversibility. The description is purely functional without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not mention behavior on empty arrays, non-numeric inputs, edge cases, or performance. It carries full burden but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, very concise, front-loads the key information. Loses a point for being too terse; could add more value without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description lacks details on input validation, handling of edge cases, and expected data types. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing input guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only implicitly references 'values' and 'percentiles' without explaining their format, constraints, or default behavior. The 'percentiles' parameter is not described beyond its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes descriptive statistics (count, mean, median, std, variance, min, max, range, percentiles) from a list of values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like correlation or histogram.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites are needed. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. While it mentions error handling for missing variables, it does not explain the effect of the 'strict' parameter or confirm that the tool is read-only (no side effects). This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and syntax. Every word adds value with no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and an output schema (not shown), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, syntax, and basic error behavior but lacks explanation of the 'strict' parameter and potential edge cases. Adequate for straightforward use but incomplete for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'template' and 'variables' generically, noting the syntax but not detailing the structure of the variables object. The 'strict' parameter is completely ignored, providing no help with its semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a template string with variables and specifies syntax. It distinguishes from sibling tools like template_template_render_named by focusing on raw string templates, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like template_template_render_named or other template-related tools. It only describes basic functionality without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states deletion and the return value, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose destructive nature, irreversibility, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if timer doesn't exist). The agent is left uninformed about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the essential action and return type. The length is appropriate for a simple tool, though the '[timer]' prefix seems redundant with the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description covers the basic action and result. However, it omits behavior on missing timer (e.g., error or false return) and does not mention any required permissions or prerequisites, leaving moderate gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a required parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description does not clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., timer identifier, label). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a timer' with a specific verb and resource, and indicates the return type as {deleted: bool}. This differentiates it from sibling timer tools like stop, start, or reset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., timer_timer_stop, timer_timer_reset). The agent receives no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects and error states. It only states it stops a timer and returns data, omitting whether stopping is irreversible, multiple calls effects, or handling of missing timers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence plus return format), which is efficient but lacks important details. It could be expanded slightly for clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and presence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address error cases (timer not found), prerequisites, or behavioral nuances like stopping an already stopped timer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is required but completely undefined in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property type. At minimum, it should clarify that name refers to the timer identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops a timer and returns elapsed time fields. The verb 'Stop' and resource 'timer' are specific, and the return format distinguishes it from siblings like timer_timer_start or timer_timer_lap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., timer_timer_elapsed, timer_timer_reset). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation and return schema, but omits safety, side effects (e.g., mutating input), and error handling details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, one line with essential info. It is front-loaded with the operation and key details, though the format could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not cover error scenarios, handling of missing keys, nested coercion, or performance considerations. The tool's simplicity does not fully excuse the lack of completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by specifying the types parameter's key-value format and allowed types (str/int/float/bool/list/dict/null). However, it does not explain the 'record' parameter beyond being an object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: type-coerce values. It specifies the types parameter format and the return structure, distinguishing it from sibling transform tools like flatten or pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it applies transformations and returns results, but lacks details on error handling, order of operations, whether input is mutated, or what happens with missing fields. Minimal 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence specifying the operation and the return shape. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the return structure but lacks details on error behavior, parameter interactions, and constraints. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for complex usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter names but does not explain their meaning (e.g., pick is an array of keys to keep, rename is a mapping). The parameter names are self-descriptive to some extent, but the description adds no detail beyond the names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it applies pick/omit/rename/coerce/add operations to each record in a list, distinguishing it from siblings that apply single operations to a single record. The return format {results, count, errors} adds further clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus the individual transform tools (transform_omit, transform_pick, etc.). The description implies it's for batch processing of lists, but does not mention edge cases or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('List all edges') with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is accurate but lacks additional context such as permissions required or any constraints like graph existence. The behavior is straightforward but minimally described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is very concise and directly states the tool's purpose and output format. It is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity, but it could be slightly improved by adding a brief explanation of the parameter within the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate in explaining what the tool does and the output format. However, it lacks explicit parameter guidance and does not leverage the output schema to reduce the burden. The context is largely sufficient but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the 'name' parameter; it only provides the tool's purpose. While the '[graph]' prefix hints that 'name' refers to the graph name, this is not explicit, and the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all edges in the format [{from, to}], using the verb 'List' on resource 'edges'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_graph_add_edge (adds edges) and graph_graph_nodes (lists nodes). However, it does not explicitly link the required parameter 'name' to the graph name, which is only implied by the '[graph]' prefix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with related tools such as graph_graph_path or graph_graph_status. The description is purely functional without contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the return object format but omits side effects, permissions, and whether the lock can be re-acquired.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and direct, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating purpose, return, and usage notes).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an existing output schema, the description lacks critical context about side effects, permissions, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for a forceful operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description adds no explanation of what 'name' refers to (e.g., lock name or resource).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('force-release') and identifies the resource ('lock'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like lock_release (owner-constrained) and lock_release_all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'regardless of owner' implies forceful usage, but no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool is destructive (removes all items) but lacks details about irreversibility, side effects, or whether the queue itself remains. This is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one short sentence), which is good, but it is arguably too sparse for an important destructive operation. It is front-loaded with the prefix '[queue]'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it omits usage context and fails to differentiate from siblings. It is minimally complete but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is defined in the schema but has no description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify what the name represents or how to specify it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove all items') and the resource ('a queue'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like queue_queue_delete or queue_queue_pop, which could confuse an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other queue operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions error behavior if template doesn't exist, but omits other behavioral traits like side-effects or permissions. No annotations provided, so description carries burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with category, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite output schema, parameter descriptions are insufficient and usage context is lacking given many sibling tools. Could detail the roles of each parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description only implicitly covers 'name' and 'variables' but omits 'strict' entirely. Adds minimal value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a previously saved named template with variables, distinguishing it from inline rendering. However, it could explicitly contrast with template_template_render.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies the template must be pre-saved but doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return format, but does not state side effects (e.g., whether the timer continues, if laps are cumulative, or if there are limits).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and includes the output format, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating parameter info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an implicit output schema, the description lacks explanation of the parameter, prerequisites, and behavioral implications. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is still incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explain the purpose of the 'name' parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which only lists the parameter as a required string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Record a lap split' which is a specific action on a timer resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like timer_start, timer_stop, and timer_elapsed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to record a lap during a running timer, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., timer must be started).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action of deletion by name but does not mention any side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or what happens to related data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and uses the prefix [alert] for context. It is concise but could be more structured, perhaps including a note about return values or side effects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about return values (despite the output schema) and doesn't address when to use this versus other alert sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning beyond what the schema provides. It only repeats 'by name', which is already in the schema. It does not clarify the format or context of the name parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Delete', the resource 'alert rule', and the deletion criterion 'by name'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alert_alert_clear (which clears alerts) and alert_alert_define (which creates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as alert_alert_clear or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as JavaScript execution, redirect handling, authentication, or output format. The agent cannot assess side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence that earns its place by stating the core purpose with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of browsing a URL and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks detail on what 'page text content' includes (e.g., all visible text, stripped HTML). Output format is unclear, and no error conditions are mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'url' parameter has no schema description and the tool description adds no extra meaning (e.g., required scheme, format, or example). With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens a URL and returns page text content. The verb 'open' and resource 'URL' are specific, and the prefix [browser] and name help distinguish from fetching tools like fetch_fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like http_http_request or fetch. Does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return type but does not mention error handling, behavior with invalid input, or how the url_safe parameter affects decoding. This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with two sentences. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Could be slightly expanded to cover key behavioral aspects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits explanation of the url_safe parameter and does not specify return value format (though output schema exists). An average score reflects the missing details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. The 'url_safe' boolean parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent without context on its meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Decode a base64-encoded string. Returns the original string.' It uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling like crypto_base64_encode which does the opposite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. The description is self-explanatory for a simple decode operation, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only repeats the tool's function. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as input constraints, side effects, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the essential action and return value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description omits explanation of the url_safe parameter and does not cover usage guidelines or behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters with no descriptions. The description only hints at 'data' being the string to encode but ignores the 'url_safe' parameter entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Base64-encode a string' and mentions the return value. It distinguishes from the sibling crypto_base64_decode tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 crypto_base64_decode or other crypto tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description provides basic functional behavior and return type but omits edge cases, performance implications, or assumptions about input size. Adequate for a simple tool but lacking depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and return type. No wasted words, easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (some optional) and multiple sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain optional parameters or contrast with siblings. The output schema is described, but overall it is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names and types alone, which is insufficient for optional parameters like context and labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (compare two text strings) and resource, and details the return structure. It distinguishes from file- and word-based diff tools by specifying text strings and unified diff output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like diff_diff_words or diff_diff_stats. No context on prerequisites or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions extraction and transforms but omits details like field path syntax, error handling, idempotency, or whether it modifies data. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a listed transform options. It is concise and front-loads the core purpose. Minor improvement could separate syntax details for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits input format requirements, error behavior, and how field nesting works. The output schema exists but description doesn't complement it with behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by naming the transform options and implying 'data' is a JSON array. However, it fails to explain that 'data' should be a stringified JSON array and 'field' syntax (e.g., dot notation).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Extract a field from every item in a JSON array.' The verb 'extract' and resource 'field from items' are specific. It also lists optional transforms, distinguishing it from siblings like mr_filter or mr_reduce.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many similar map_reduce siblings, the agent lacks context to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose data format expectations (e.g., string representation of a list), or any side effects. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with scope indicator. No wasted words, but could include more detail without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing essential context about the 'data' parameter (string type, likely JSON list). Output schema exists but not provided, so description should clarify input format. Not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning for start and end (inclusive/exclusive) but does not explain the 'data' parameter (e.g., expected format). Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (return a slice) and specifies the start inclusive and end exclusive behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like map, reduce, filter by focusing on slicing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., map_reduce_mr_filter). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions export and format but does not disclose side effects, performance implications, or required permissions. The output schema exists but behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action and format info. Every part earns its place, though a bit more detail could be added without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks details on default behavior, error handling, or performance for large exports, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying valid formats ('json' default, 'prometheus text format'), compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Export all metrics' with format options, clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like metrics_metric_get or metrics_metric_list, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as metrics_metric_get or metrics_metric_list. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the temp file execution and return fields (success, returncode, stdout, stderr, truncated), but lacks details on security, permissions, or side effects. Without annotations, this is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, no redundant information. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on optional parameters (timeout, cwd, interpreter) and their impact. For a tool with 4 params and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description only mentions 'script' context. Does not explain timeout, cwd, or interpreter parameters, leaving the agent without sufficient meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run a multi-line shell script' and mentions the mechanism of writing to a temp file, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_run (likely for single commands).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. alternatives like process_run. It implies multi-line scripts but does not specify exclusions or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It does not disclose behavior when the executable is not found, case sensitivity, or search order within PATH. This lack of detail could lead to incorrect agent expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks some necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the tool purpose, though the '[process]' prefix is somewhat redundant. Still, it is well-structured and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nesting) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description might be minimally adequate. However, it could mention the return value (the full path) or error handling. It is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'name'. The description implies the parameter is the executable name but adds no details about format, optional extensions, or constraints. More explicit guidance is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the full path of an executable in PATH.' The verb 'find' and the resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'process_run' which execute programs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., process_run). It does not mention prerequisites or cases where the tool should not be used. The description solely states functionality without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return structure but omits details like determinism (seed role), error handling for empty lists, or whether the split applies shuffling. The presence of a seed parameter is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose, defaults, and output. Every word is meaningful, and the tool name is front-loaded in brackets.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the algorithm (e.g., shuffling, deterministic vs. random), how to interpret the 'splits' and 'sizes', and edge cases. For a tool with 3 parameters, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the default ratio and return format but does not clarify the structure of 'ratios', the effect of 'seed', or the expected type of 'items'. This adds some value but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Split list into partitions') and the resource (list of items). It specifies default ratios and return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sampler_shuffle or sampler_random_choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The mention of 'train/test' implies a common use case but does not provide context for other scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the output structure but lacks details on behavior edge cases (e.g., if n is null, returns all?; what if machine doesn't exist?). No annotations to supplement, so description carries burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. However, it could be structured with more detail in the same space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing critical context: no mention of what happens for invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent machine, n negative), no prerequisites, and no explanation of output schema beyond a brief format. Incomplete for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It implies name is the state machine and n is the number of transitions, but doesn't map explicitly or explain defaults (n=null meaning all?). Only partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the last n transitions of a state machine and specifies the output format as [{seq, from, to, timestamp}]. It distinguishes from siblings like sm_add_transition (adds) and sm_state (current state) but doesn't explicitly compare them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sm_state or sm_status. Missing prerequisites (e.g., machine must exist) or conditions where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. With no annotations, it should disclose permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No redundant words; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is terse; it does not explain the required parameter or constraints (e.g., state machine must exist). Even with an output schema, prerequisites and failure behavior are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., the state machine identifier), failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the current state and allowed next states, using a specific verb (Return) and resource (state machine state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sm_status or sm_history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., sm_status, sm_list). The description does not provide usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only implies mutation ('Add') but omits side effects (e.g., overwriting, dimension constraints). Does not disclose permissions or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus return info. Extremely concise with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks detail on optional parameters (metadata, doc_id), constraints (vector dimensions), and behavior for edge cases. Incomplete for a write operation with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description only hints at 'name' and 'vector' but does not explain 'metadata' or 'doc_id' parameters. Return value is mentioned but not parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add a vector), the resource (named store), and the return type ({id, name, dim}). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, search, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vector_store_vector_search or vector_store_vector_get). No conditions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the deletion action without mentioning irreversibility, side effects, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, placing it slightly below perfect conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the basic action but omits return value (despite having an output schema) and error handling. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required 'name' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond implying that 'name' identifies the store. It fails to clarify format, source, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete an entire named vector store.' It uses a specific verb (Delete) and resource (vector store), and distinguishes from sibling tools like vector_store_vector_delete, which presumably deletes individual vectors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vector_store_vector_delete or when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., store existence) or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates a read operation (get), but fails to disclose error handling (e.g., if workflow does not exist), side effects, or required permissions. The description is too minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or behavior when the workflow is missing. Despite many sibling tools, it does not contextualize its role. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (required string). No examples, format constraints, or context are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full definition of a workflow by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like workflow_workflow_define (create/update) and workflow_workflow_list (list names only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing the full definition of a named workflow, but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the output structure (tag, text, attrs) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, performance implications, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of being comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence is valuable and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose and output structure. However, it lacks examples, error handling, and specific usage context, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names 'xml_string' and 'xpath'. It does not clarify expected formats, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all elements matching an XPath expression, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like xml_xml_find, which likely returns the first match.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other XML tools like xml_xml_find or xml_xml_extract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic behavior. It does not disclose edge cases (e.g., size <= 0, empty list), order preservation, or behavior with non-divisible lists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one succinct sentence plus return type notation. It avoids fluff, though it could be better structured with verb first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool and presence of an output schema, the description covers split functionality and return fields. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings and mentions of ordering or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds functional meaning: 'Split list into chunks of `size`' clarifies that items is the list and size is chunk size. This is sufficient for basic parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Split), resource (list), and key parameter (size), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like batch_batch_partition or batch_batch_filter. The output structure is also specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as batch_batch_partition (which splits by predicate) or batch_batch_filter. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions built-in reducers but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or behavior for missing/invalid fn strings. Insufficient for full understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. Could improve by explicitly listing reducers in a structured format, but current is efficient and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists but not shown; description omits return value. For a reduction tool, return type is inferred but not explicit. Most context provided, but missing output info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains 'initial' as starting accumulator and lists built-in reducers, adding meaning beyond schema but does not describe the 'items' array type or custom fn usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states this is a fold/reduce operation on items with fn(acc, item), distinguishes from batch siblings like map and filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or comparison to batch_batch_map). Over-reliance on tool name for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the listing action. It omits details like output format, performance, or side effects, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. It front-loads the core purpose but could include more useful details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return value (e.g., array of strings) and how this fits into the larger toolbox.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, making the description's contribution minimal. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional parameter-level semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists built-in function names, specifying 'fns + reducers'. The '[batch]' prefix disambiguates from other list tools like 'workflow_builtin_fns' and batch operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'workflow_builtin_fns' or other discovery tools. It does not specify context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given the absence of annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, impact on other cache operations) but only states the action of removal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that wastes no words, front-loading the key action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description could mention that it is a destructive operation or that it returns a success status. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the lack of return value detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the description accurately reflects that. No additional parameter explanations are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove ALL entries') and the resource ('the cache'), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cache_cache_delete, which may also remove entries selectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., cache_cache_delete for selective removal), nor any caution about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions optional merging up to max_chars, which is helpful but incomplete. It does not explain what happens if the separator is not found, how merging works, or other edge cases, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main action, but could be slightly longer to cover missing parameter information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and a output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the merging algorithm or the keep_separator parameter, which are essential for correct use. The output schema exists but its format is not hinted, though not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the separator and max_chars parameters implicitly, but fails to mention the keep_separator parameter entirely. This leaves a key parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool splits text on a custom separator and optionally merges parts up to a maximum character count. This distinguishes it from other chunker tools like chunker_chunk_sliding_window or chunker_chunk_text, which use different splitting strategies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative chunker tools. It only states what it does, without mentioning when it is appropriate or when other tools would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool splits text, lists modes, and specifies the output format (list of objects with index, text, char_count, token_estimate). However, it does not explain default values for max_chars and overlap, how overlap interacts with different modes, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose, modes, and return type. It is efficiently front-loaded but could benefit from a clearer structure, such as bullet points for parameters or a separate note about defaults.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (text chunking with multiple modes, overlap, size control) and the existence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, modes, and return structure but omits details on parameter interactions and defaults. The output schema helps define the return structure, but the description alone is insufficient for confident agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'mode' parameter with its allowed values (chars/tokens/sentences/paragraphs). The 'text', 'max_chars', and 'overlap' parameters receive no additional meaning beyond their schema definitions (which lack descriptions), making the parameter semantics weak.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool splits text into chunks and lists the available chunking modes (chars/tokens/sentences/paragraphs). It defines the return structure, differentiating it from sibling tools like chunker_chunk_by_separator or chunker_chunk_sliding_window, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies appropriate use for text chunking with various modes but offers no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning potential errors (e.g., table not found), permissions required, or whether the operation is read-only. The single sentence provides 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the domain tag and clearly states the purpose. While brief, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though some might argue it could be slightly expanded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, no enums, and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description is adequate but lacks any usage guidance or behavioral context. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps in transparency and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It implies the 'table' parameter is the table name, which provides basic context but no format or constraints beyond the schema's string type. The parameter's role is inferred, but additional details (e.g., required format) are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the CREATE TABLE statement for a specific table, identifying the action ('Get'), resource ('CREATE TABLE statement'), and target ('a specific table'). This distinguishes it from siblings like database_db_tables (list tables) and database_db_query (run arbitrary queries).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as database_db_tables (for listing tables) or database_db_query (for querying information_schema). The description lacks context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the input and output but does not disclose accepted datetime formats, timezone handling, error behavior, or whether the string is expected to be in a specific standard. Limited transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No extraneous information, and the '[datetime]' prefix provides category context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with an output schema (exists but not shown), the description is reasonably complete but lacks critical details on input format and edge cases. Given the absence of annotations, it should include more context to be fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value by labeling the input as a 'datetime string', but does not specify format constraints, valid formats, or examples. The agent lacks essential detail to invoke correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Convert', the resource 'datetime string', and the output 'Unix timestamp (seconds since epoch)'. It distinguishes from siblings like datetime_from_timestamp (reverse) and datetime_format_dt (formatting) by focusing on conversion to timestamp.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 datetime_format_dt or datetime_parse. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at supported currency codes but does not explain rounding behavior, default decimals, error handling for invalid codes, or locale-specific formatting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two clauses) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the example from parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic use but lacks details on edge cases, error conditions, or the return value format (though an output schema exists).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description partially compensates by listing sample currency codes and showing an example output, but does not define 'decimals' or the default behavior when optional parameters are null.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool formats a number as currency with a concrete example ('1234.5 → '$1,234.50''). It distinguishes from sibling format tools like format_format_number and format_format_percent by specifying currency formatting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., format_format_number for plain number formatting). Sibling tools are many, but no selection criteria is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'renders' a table, implying no side effects, but does not confirm read-only status, error handling (e.g., invalid JSON), or performance characteristics. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with a '[format]' tag. Every word serves a purpose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters. It is not verbose, but the compactness is appropriate for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is incomplete. It only addresses the 'data' parameter loosely, ignoring 'columns' and 'max_col_width'. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returned values), the input parameter documentation is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. Only 'data' is partially described as 'JSON array of dicts'—this adds some meaning beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, 'columns' and 'max_col_width' are not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a JSON array of dicts as a plain-text table, specifying both input and output formats. It distinguishes from sibling format_* tools that format single values (e.g., format_bytes, format_currency) by explicitly mentioning 'table'. The verb 'Render' is specific and appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a JSON array of dicts and want a text table, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives like table_table_read. No exclusion criteria or context about when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 action and mentions configurable indentation, but does not address safety, side effects, error conditions, or what happens with invalid input. 'Pretty-print' 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the key action. However, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. It fails to specify that the input must be valid JSON or that an error will occur otherwise. The output is implied but not described. For a simple format tool, it minimally covers the core action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'configurable indentation' which hints at the indent parameter, but provides no detail about valid values (integer vs null) or that indent specifies spaces. The data parameter is not explained (must be valid JSON string). This adds some value but not enough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Pretty-print a JSON string with configurable indentation.' The verb 'Pretty-print' is specific and the resource 'JSON string' is well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like json_json_filter, json_json_get, etc., 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other JSON manipulation tools or formatting tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The usage context is entirely implied by the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-blocking behavior and return structure ({acquired, held_by?}), but lacks details on reentrancy, lock scope, or automatic release. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Prefixed '[lock]' helps categorize. Could benefit from slight expansion on parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Very brief for a lock tool with 3 parameters and output schema. Does not explain TTL, owner usage, or whether lock is distributed/global. Output schema exists but content not in description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 3 parameters (name, owner, ttl_s) with 0% schema description coverage. Description mentions none of them, adding no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Non-blocking lock attempt' and distinguishes from sibling lock_lock_acquire by specifying 'non-blocking' and 'returns immediately'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for non-blocking attempts but does not explicitly contrast with lock_lock_acquire (which may block) or other siblings like lock_lock_release. No alternative scenarios or exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or what happens if the queue doesn't exist. For a simple read operation, basic transparency is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, with one meaningful sentence and a helpful '[queue]' prefix. No excess words; every part serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple size-checking tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter explanation and usage guidance, and the absence of annotations means it should carry more behavioral context. An output schema exists but is not described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., queue name or ID), leaving ambiguity. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns the number of items in a queue. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('number of items'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like queue_queue_peek, queue_queue_pop, etc., by focusing on size.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_queue_list or queue_queue_peek. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description discloses it consumes one token and returns {consumed: true/false}, but does not explain effects on rate limit state, error handling (e.g., if limit exceeded or name invalid), or idempotency. Lacks depth 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short, single sentence with return format. Front-loaded and efficient, but the ambiguity around cost reduces effectiveness. Still concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing key context: side effects on the rate limiter, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema (implied) is mentioned, but parameter semantics and usage guidelines are absent. Incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain 'name' (the rate limit identifier) or 'cost' (optional number, default null). It says 'consumes one token' but the cost parameter allows consuming multiple, creating inconsistency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool records a request and consumes a token, returning a boolean. It uses the prefix [rate_limit] to group with siblings and distinguishes from 'acquire' or 'check' by indicating consumption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like rate_limit_limiter_acquire or rate_limit_limiter_check. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and return type, omitting details like default maxsplit behavior, how flags are interpreted, and edge cases (e.g., empty pattern).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence—and front-loads the core action. However, it could benefit from a slightly expanded structure (e.g., listing parameters briefly) without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain maxsplit semantics, flag options, or return format (though output schema exists). Given the tool's complexity, more detail is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters beyond the property names in the schema. It does not clarify the meaning or constraints of maxsplit or flags, nor does it provide examples of acceptable values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it splits text by a regex pattern and returns a list of strings. Among sibling regex tools (findall, match, search, replace), splitting is a distinct operation, so the differentiation is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for splitting text by regex but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like regex_regex_findall or regex_regex_search. There is no mention of maxsplit or flags behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches items and returns specific fields, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention caching, rate limits, or how many items are returned (the count parameter). The description is adequate but minimally detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose with the '[rss]' prefix. It is concise and to the point, though the prefix may be unnecessary. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and return format but omits parameter semantics and usage context. Without explaining parameters or differentiating from siblings, the description feels incomplete for an agent to confidently use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (url, count) with 0% coverage in descriptions. The description does not explain the 'url' or 'count' parameters at all. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for proper invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'RSS or Atom feed URL', and specifies the return content (titles, links, summaries). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rss_list_feeds (lists feeds) and rss_read_feed (reads feed details) by focusing on fetching items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching latest feed items but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like rss_list_feeds or rss_read_feed. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values but lacks any behavioral details such as side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action and outputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status tool, the description covers the main return values. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., index must exist), possible error conditions, and any additional context like whether it is read-only. An output schema exists but is not provided; still, the description could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description indirectly implies it is the index name, but does not explicitly state its purpose or format. More detail is needed to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Return') and specific resources ('doc count, token count, and indexed fields'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_index_index_create or search_index_index_search, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context, when-not scenarios, or references to related tools (e.g., search_index_index_list, search_index_index_list_docs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions the return format but omits details on edge cases (e.g., empty input), the effect of top_n, or sorting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose and output format, with a gentle prefix '[stats]' for categorization. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema likely details return fields, the description barely covers input behavior and parameter effects. It provides basic understanding but lacks depth for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the 'values' parameter (expected data types) or 'top_n' functionality. It relies solely on parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs frequency count for categorical data and specifies the return format as [{value, count, percent}]. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like histogram (numeric data) and correlation (relationships).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for categorical data frequency analysis but does not explicitly say when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic functionality and output format, omitting critical details like file size limits, error handling, encoding, or read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but the '[table]' prefix is redundant given the tool name. It efficiently communicates core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return type is covered, but the description lacks behavioral completeness: no mention of large file handling, required headers, delimiter options, or error cases. Given no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds only the file type (CSV/TSV) but no details on the filepath parameter, such as supported formats, delimiter handling, or relative/absolute paths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'CSV or TSV file', and specifies output as JSON array of objects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like table_table_filter or table_table_write.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading tabular data but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format (list of dicts) and input parameters, but does not cover edge cases (e.g., tag not found, namespaces, performance). It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the '[xml]' prefix. No wasted words, but could slightly expand on critical details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema is indicated, the description lacks details about the output structure beyond 'list of dicts'. Given the many sibling XML tools, more context (e.g., how attributes are structured, behavior on invalid input) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage (0%) for its two parameters. The description does not explain the expected format of xml_string (e.g., well-formed XML string) or whether tag is case-sensitive. It adds minimal value beyond the schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns attributes of all elements with a given tag name as a list of dicts. It specifies the verb 'return', the resource 'attributes', and the condition 'of all elements with a given tag name', distinguishing it from sibling tools like xml_find (returns elements) or xml_tags (returns tag names).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 xml_xml_extract, xml_xml_findall, or xml_xml_to_dict. There are no explicit context or exclusion statements to help an agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the split behavior and return format, which is the core operation. However, it does not explain details such as how 'fn' is applied (e.g., as a function name string), error handling for invalid fn, or what happens with empty input. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and return value. It is very concise but lacks some detail; however, it is not verbose and is easily parseable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a partition operation with a function parameter, the description covers the basic flow but omits details about function execution, type constraints, and edge cases. The mention of return keys provides some context, but the tool would benefit from more thorough explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (items, fn) with no description. The tool description does not explain the format or expected values for 'fn' (e.g., is it a function name, an expression, or a lambda?). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: split an array into two lists based on a truthy/falsy evaluation of each element. It specifies the return shape including counts, and the '[batch]' prefix categorizes it correctly. The operation is distinct from sibling batch tools like filter, map, reduce, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives like batch_batch_filter (which only returns passing items) or other partitioning utilities. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the return value structure ({results, count}) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like input validation, error handling, or safety. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden but provides minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief: one sentence plus a return structure note. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, but could be slightly more informative about parameters without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain input expectations or how the tool fits among siblings. The output schema exists but is not described, and the description misses behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'with given keys' and 'Zip multiple lists' but does not explain the relation between keys and lists, the structure of lists, or behavior when lists is null. It adds some meaning but not full compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Zip multiple lists into list of dicts with given keys.' It specifies the purpose and distinguishes from siblings like batch_batch_chunk and batch_batch_filter. The return structure is mentioned, adding clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use. Sibling tools like batch_batch_map exist but no comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the basic operation and as_type coercion, but does not disclose behavior regarding missing keys, default values, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, this lacks sufficient behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and a key parameter explanation. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the core function for a simple config get tool, but lacks usage context and behavioral details (e.g., handling missing keys). The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but more guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'as_type' parameter by listing supported types (int/float/bool/str/json), compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. However, 'name' and 'key' parameters are not elaborated, and 'default' is not mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a read operation ('Get a config value') and mentions the key feature of as_type coercion, distinguishing it from sibling config tools like config_config_set, config_config_list, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other config tools, such as config_config_list for listing or config_config_set for setting values. The description assumes the user knows the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses return format (sorted list of {text, score}) but omits algorithmic details, performance characteristics, or edge-case behaviors. Basic transparency is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds output format and use cases. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no annotations. The description explains output format but leaves 'top_n' and 'threshold' unexplained, and does not specify the expected element type for 'candidates'. Incomplete for a fuzzy matching function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only implicitly covers 'query' and 'candidates' via context. Parameters 'top_n' and 'threshold' are not explained, leaving their semantics unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds most similar strings to a query from candidates and returns sorted results. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling diff tools (e.g., diff_diff_text, diff_diff_files), though the focus on similarity is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions usefulness for fuzzy matching and near-duplicate detection, which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the core behavior (formatting with thousands separators) but does not disclose that parameters allow custom separators and decimal places, which could affect formatting. However, for a simple formatting tool, the basic behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence with example) and gains high efficiency. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Though it could benefit from slight expansion on parameters, it wastes no words for the basic use case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool and existence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the default operation but lacks explanation of optional parameters and edge cases (e.g., what happens if no separators provided). The agent can infer basic usage but may miss customization options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 4 parameters (value, decimals, thousands_sep, decimal_sep) with 0% description coverage. The description only illustrates the default behavior (commas and period). It does not explain the optional parameters or their effects, failing to add meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Format with thousands separators' and provides a concrete example (1234567.89 → '1,234,567.89'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling formatting tools like format_format_currency or format_format_percent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For instance, it doesn't mention that format_format_currency would be more appropriate for monetary values or that format_format_percent handles percentages. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that the node and all its edges are removed, which is a key behavioral detail. With no annotations provided, this is acceptable, though it could mention reversal or graph existence requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, this minimal description is insufficient. It does not confirm that the graph must exist, nor does it describe the return value, even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain what the 'name' and 'node' parameters represent. The agent cannot know that 'name' likely refers to the graph name and 'node' to the node identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Remove) and resource (a node), with a domain prefix [graph]. It distinguishes from siblings like graph_graph_add_node and graph_graph_remove_edge by noting that all edges are removed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 graph_graph_remove_edge (which removes only an edge) or graph_graph_delete (which might remove the entire graph). The agent is left without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (JSON with 'status', 'headers', 'body'), which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, authentication, or side effects (e.g., mutability on the server side for POST/PUT).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by use cases and output format. Every word adds value without superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not provided but inferred), the description covers the basics. However, it omits important context like allowed HTTP methods, whether redirects are followed, timeout behavior, and error response structure, which are necessary for robust usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters. The description does not clarify parameter semantics beyond implying that 'method' and 'url' are required, and that headers and body are optional. It does not explain the difference between 'body' and 'body_text', nor the allowed values for 'method' (e.g., GET, POST).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Make an HTTP request to any URL') and lists specific use cases (REST APIs, webhooks, form submissions). It distinguishes the tool's broad applicability but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'fetch_fetch' which likely has overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (any HTTP endpoint) but does not provide guidance on when not to use or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools like 'fetch_fetch' or 'retry_retry_http' exist but are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permanence of deletion, failure conditions, or whether the key must already exist. The single sentence is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, containing only one sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on error handling or return values. Since the output schema exists, return value explanation is not required, but potential failure modes are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds context that 'key' is the identifier of the fact to remove, which is not present in the input schema (0% coverage). However, it does not elaborate on the key format or constraints, so it provides minimal added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a stored fact by key' clearly states the action (remove), the resource (stored fact), and the identifier (key). Among siblings like memory_remember and memory_recall, it is uniquely identifiable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_remember or memory_recall, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, access constraints, or the nature of 'persistent memory'. The description carries the full burden but only states the tool searches, missing important context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though additional detail could be included without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimal and leaves gaps about how search works and what constitutes 'relevant'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description. The description mentions 'query' implicitly but does not elaborate on its format, semantics, or expected input. Minimal added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'search' and resource 'persistent memory', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes well from siblings 'memory_remember' and 'memory_forget'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving facts, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks depth.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that the counter is created if missing and returns updated state. However, it does not mention idempotency, atomicity, or concurrency behavior. A score of 3 is adequate given the basic disclosure but missing details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It includes some extra detail about tracked fields, which may or may not be necessary, but overall is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present (implied) and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (increment, create if missing, return state). However, it does not explain the 'tags' parameter or relate the tool to siblings like metric_gauge. Some gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'value' parameter (optional, defaults to 1) and implies 'name' is the metric name, but 'tags' is not mentioned at all. This partial coverage leaves a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it increments a counter metric by a value, and creates the counter if it doesn't exist. The verb 'increment' and resource 'counter metric' are specific. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like metric_gauge, the action is unique and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metric_gauge (for gauges) or metric_get (for reading). The description implies use for incrementing but does not address when not to use or provide comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details about side effects, permissions, or what 'scheduled tasks' entails. For a mutation-less tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose, but could be improved by adding more context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity. It does not specify the output format or any side effects, even though an output schema exists. For a tool with no parameters, the description should clarify what is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no input is needed. While it adds no extra meaning, it meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List all scheduled tasks', which clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (scheduled tasks). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like scheduler_cancel_task, scheduler_run_pending, etc., which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for selecting this tool over similar ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses BM25 scoring and that field restricts search, but omits behaviors like what happens when field is null, effect of top_n, or search case-sensitivity. Some transparency but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without wasted words. Structure is optimal for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers the basics but fails to explain top_n behavior or provide fallback defaults for omitted parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning only for 'field' (restricts to one field). Other parameters (name, query, top_n) lack any added semantics beyond their titles. Inadequate for 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches an index with a keyword query and returns top matching documents with BM25 score. It mentions the field parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_index_index_list or search_search, which limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives minimal usage guidance: 'field restricts to one field' hints at when to use the parameter. No when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use advice is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses return values (r, r_squared, interpretation). However, it does not mention input requirements (numeric, same length), handling of missing values, or any assumptions like normality, which would be needed for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys core functionality and output. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include constraints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers purpose and outputs. However, missing parameter constraints and usage context reduce completeness. An output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not specify that x and y must be numeric arrays of equal length, nor any type constraints, despite the schema allowing any type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Pearson correlation between x and y' with output including r, r_squared, and interpretation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stats_stats_describe and stats_stats_frequency.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or assumptions (e.g., data must be continuous, linear relationship). The description does not mention when not to use Pearson correlation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions pagination and return type but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or requires any preconditions. Given the absence of annotations, the description does not adequately convey behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it omits necessary details that could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the return format is covered. However, the description lacks context on parameter semantics and pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description should clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., the vector store name) and how offset/limit behave.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (stored vector IDs) with pagination. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like vector_store_vector_add or vector_store_vector_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied but not supported by exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. While 'Clear events' implies deletion, it does not warn that clearing is permanent or irreversible, nor does it mention permission requirements or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, one sentence with a category prefix. It is front-loaded with the action and key parameter. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action, conditional parameter, and return format. However, it leaves ambiguity about when 'before' is null (clears all?) and the exact structure of the return object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'before' parameter by explaining its purpose ('timestamp to clear only older events'), but with 0% schema coverage, more detail (e.g., timestamp format) would improve clarity. The explanation is adequate but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear events') and highlights the optional 'before' parameter to clear only older events. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like audit_audit_export, audit_audit_get, and other clear tools such as cache_cache_clear or alert_alert_clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the use of the 'before' parameter but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or potential risks. It does not mention destructive nature or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('retrieve'), omitting details like what happens if the ID is invalid, permission requirements, or rate limits. The lack of such information leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by noting that it returns a single event object matching the ID, or by referencing the output schema. The presence of many sibling tools suggests additional context would help selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the event_id parameter beyond the schema. It adds no additional meaning—it repeats 'by ID' but does not specify the format or expected value. The agent relies solely on the schema, which only defines it as a required string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve'), the resource ('event'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like audit_audit_search (which returns multiple events) and audit_audit_clear (which performs a different operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific event ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_audit_search for unknown IDs or audit_audit_export for bulk operations. No exclusion or context about prerequisite steps is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format and basic operation, but lacks details on default behavior when window_chars or step_chars are null, and does not mention edge cases or algorithmic specifics. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence plus return format). It is front-loaded and no wasted words. However, it sacrifices clarity on parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the two optional parameters and their relationship, leaving ambiguity for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage and the description does not explain the window_chars and step_chars parameters. It only mentions 'text' implicitly. The return format hints at usage but does not clarify parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool implements a sliding window over text, returning chunks with index, text, start, and end. This distinguishes it from sibling chunkers like chunker_chunk_by_separator and chunker_chunk_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for overlapping chunks but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like separator-based chunking. No exclusions or contextual advice are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, performance implications, or side effects. While it describes what is returned, it omits important context for a compute-intensive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus return type spec. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is an output schema, but the description explicitly lists return fields, which is helpful. However, it lacks edge-case handling (e.g., empty strings, very large texts) and no usage context. Adequate for a simple tool but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only says 'two texts' without detailing text_a and text_b (e.g., format, length limits, encoding). This adds minimal value beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it computes similarity and change statistics between two texts, and explicitly lists the return fields (similarity, added_chars, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diff_diff_text and diff_diff_similar by focusing on statistics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for computing diff stats, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as diff_diff_text or diff_diff_similar. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral context. It states what is cleared (history and subscribers) but does not disclose that this is a destructive, irreversible operation or any permission requirements. The transparency is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, one sentence with minimal waste. It front-loads the context '[event_bus]' and immediately conveys the core function. It could be slightly more structured but is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details about return value, error conditions, or safety warnings. Given the absence of annotations, more context would be helpful for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that omitting the 'topic' parameter clears all topics, and includes the topic name parameter. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a valid topic name or any constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds some value but could go further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (clear) and the resource (history and subscribers for a topic, or all topics). It distinguishes from siblings like bus_publish, bus_subscribe, etc., as the only clear operation on the event bus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., viewing history with bus_history or managing subscriptions individually). There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or recommended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior but does not mention whether the file is created if missing, permissions needed, or encoding details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is concise but could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain the return value or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only types and required status with 0% description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning for 'path' or 'content' parameters, such as path format or content encoding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('write'), the resource ('file'), and the effect ('overwriting any existing content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_file_append and file_file_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for replacing file contents but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus file_file_append or other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It shows the output format and mentions the binary parameter's effect, but it does not address edge cases (negative values, non-integer) or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with one sentence plus an example. It front-loads the purpose and is efficient, but it could be more structured by listing parameters explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the 'decimals' parameter, return type (though output schema exists), or behavior for invalid inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It partially explains the 'binary' parameter and implicitly shows 'decimals' through the example, but does not explicitly describe the 'decimals' parameter or its valid range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: formatting a byte count into a human-readable string (e.g., '1.2 MB'). It specifies the input (byte count) and output format, distinguishing it from other format tools like format_number or format_currency.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like format_number or format_duration. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required context (e.g., git repo), or behavior of the optional repo_dir parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without any superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers basic purpose, but the lack of parameter explanation and usage context leaves gaps. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the parameter repo_dir. The description does not explain its purpose or default behavior, leaving the agent uninformed about this optional input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('List') and resource ('all local branches'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_git_branch_create (create) or git_git_status (status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use to list local branches. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reveals the key behavioral trait that nodes are auto-created if they don't exist. However, it does not disclose whether the edge already exists (overwrite or error), permissions required, or other side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but remains incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear action and context. The leading '[graph]' tag helps with categorization. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Coverage is partial: it explains the core action and auto-creation, but omits prerequisites (graph must exist), error handling (duplicate edge), and any constraints. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but preconditions are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'src' and 'dst' via 'Add a directed edge src → dst', but does not explain the 'name' parameter (likely the graph name). The description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a directed edge src → dst' with the specific resource (edge in a graph) and direction. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_graph_remove_edge and graph_graph_add_node by mentioning auto-creation of nodes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., graph_graph_add_node then a separate edge add, or graph_graph_remove_edge). The auto-creation hint is implicit but not explicitly compared to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return value ('full metric dict') and error behavior ('or an error if not found'). However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), authorization requirements, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a brief return note. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior but lacks guidance on when to use it and does not elaborate on parameter semantics. The output schema reduces the need to describe return details, but the overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly refers to the 'name' parameter through 'specific metric', but provides no additional constraints, format, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's 'Name' title and type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Get the current state of a specific metric.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metric state'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like metrics_metric_list (list all) or metrics_metric_export (export) by focusing on a single metric by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention that metrics_metric_list should be used to retrieve all metrics, or that metrics_metric_get is for individual queries. This omission forces the agent to infer usage from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format and mentions 'truncated', hinting at truncation behavior. However, it does not address potential side effects like long execution, security implications, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two crisp sentences: first states purpose, second details return format. No filler, front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, potential security concerns), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter descriptions and behavioral details, but it covers the return structure and basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds no meaning to parameters beyond their names. It does not explain 'timeout', 'cwd', or 'shell' parameters; thus fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run a shell command' with the specific verb 'Run' and resource 'shell command'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'process_run_script' by focusing on command execution vs script execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_run_script' or 'process_which'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the item is returned without removal, which is crucial for a queue operation. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover other behaviors like permissions, error conditions, or return value details beyond the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence that includes a domain tag and the core functionality. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete in terms of operation. However, it fails to document the parameter, which is a notable omission for a tool with only one parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or its purpose, failing to 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'next item', and explicitly notes 'WITHOUT removing it', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_queue_pop. The '[queue]' prefix reinforces the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to peek without removal) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling context provides differentiation, but the description lacks clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutative behavior ('Remove') and return format, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., empty queue vs. nonexistent queue) or prerequisites (e.g., queue must exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (implied by return format in description), the description covers return values. However, it lacks context on edge cases (e.g., queue not found) and does not mention that this is a destructive operation (though implied). Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (queue name). Without this, the agent cannot correctly provide the parameter value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove and return the next item') and the resource (queue). It distinguishes from siblings like queue_queue_push and queue_queue_peek by specifying removal. The return format is also described.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for popping from a queue, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., peek) or when not to use it (e.g., if queue doesn't exist). No exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ({valid: true/false}) but does not explain behavior on invalid patterns (e.g., does it throw an error or return false?), nor does it mention supported regex syntax or flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (16 words) and front-loaded with the '[regex]' tag for quick identification. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool with one parameter and an explicit return format, the description is almost complete. It covers purpose, input, and output. However, given the lack of output schema and the presence of many regex siblings, a bit more context on usage disambiguation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'pattern'. The description adds context that it is a regular expression pattern, which is minimal but helpful. It does not elaborate on expected format, allowed patterns, or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates a regular expression pattern and returns a boolean result. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('regular expression'), and the return format is specified. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like regex_regex_match or regex_regex_search, its purpose 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 many regex-related siblings (e.g., regex_regex_match, regex_regex_search, regex_regex_escape). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get the current state' without explaining what state means (e.g., open/closed/half-open), any side effects, or required permissions. It fails to add significant behavioral context beyond the tool's basic read nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is appropriately brief for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and a clear but minimal description, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks context about return value interpretation, when status is important, or prerequisites. For a simple tool, this is minimal viable completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter. The description merely says 'named circuit breaker,' which adds only trivial confirmation that the parameter identifies a circuit breaker. It does not specify valid values, format, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current state of a named circuit breaker,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. Among sibling tools like retry_circuit_create or retry_circuit_reset, this uniquely identifies the action of retrieving status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for checking circuit breaker state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context from sibling names (e.g., retry_circuit_call, retry_circuit_reset) offers implicit differentiation, but the description itself lacks usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses retry behavior (conditions, exponential backoff, optional jitter) but omits important details like maximum total time, timeout, or retry safety for non-idempotent requests. This leaves gaps for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers what the tool does and its retry behavior, though it could include a brief note on parameters without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description does not sufficiently explain parameter usage or return format. It covers retry behavior but leaves out many details needed for correct invocation, such as how to structure headers or what the response includes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parameters like 'max_attempts' and 'delay_seconds' only by name, without explanation. The terms 'exponential back-off' and 'jitter' hint at some params, but the meaning of 'body', 'headers', etc., is not elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool makes an HTTP request with automatic retry on failure, specifying retry conditions (network errors, 429, 5xx). This distinguishes it from the sibling http_http_request which likely lacks retry, and from retry_circuit_call which uses circuit breaker pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (for retries on specific failures) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like http_http_request for single attempts. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or idempotency considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the URL is validated, what happens if the name already exists (overwrite or error), or whether the feed is fetched immediately. The return value (output schema exists but is undescribed) is also missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 key action ('Save') and resource. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks behavioral details (e.g., validation, overwrite behavior) and usage guidance compared to siblings. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return values. The agent may not have sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides minimal semantics: 'Save a feed URL under a short name' implicitly defines url and name, but lacks details like expected formats, examples, or constraints. The description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Save a feed URL under a short name for quick future access.' It specifies the verb 'save' and the resources (feed URL and short name). It distinguishes from siblings like rss_fetch_feed (fetch), rss_list_feeds (list), rss_read_feed (read), and rss_unsubscribe (remove) by focusing on saving/subscribing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for saving a feed for quick future access, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rss_fetch_feed (which may also retrieve feed data) or rss_unsubscribe. No exclusion or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the generation of random integers and return format, but does not explain the distribution shape (uniform), the effect of the seed parameter, or behavior when n is null. The description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence plus a return note. It is front-loaded with the category marker '[sampler]' and directly states the core function. No unnecessary words; every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (which handles return structure), the description covers the main operation. However, it omits the seed parameter's purpose and the behavior when n is null, leaving gaps in completeness for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains low/high as inclusive range and n as count, but does not clarify that n can be null (defaulting to a single value?) nor does it explain the seed parameter at all. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Generate', specifies the resource 'random integers', and defines the range as inclusive with [low, high]. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sampler_random_choice and sampler_random_float by highlighting the specific task of integer generation within a range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like sampler_random_choice or sampler_random_float, which would help an agent decide which sampler to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authorization, or how it handles invalid inputs. It only states the methods, lacking important 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information. It is front-loaded with purpose and methods, efficiently using words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are three parameters and an output schema exists (but is not shown), the description does not explain the return format, edge cases, or interpretation of results. It lacks completeness for a statistical tool that may have complex outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'method' and 'threshold' by explaining their roles, but does not explain the 'values' parameter or default behaviors. Partial improvement over raw schema, but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'detect' and the resource 'outliers', and distinguishes from other stats tools by specifying outlier detection. It also mentions two distinct methods, making the purpose specific and clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the two methods (IQR and zscore) and their thresholds, but does not provide guidance on when to use which method or when to avoid using this tool. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the basic operation and return value but omits critical details: overwrite vs append behavior, delimiter default meaning (null implies comma?), error handling, directory creation, and side effects. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately state the action, resource, key constraint, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core action but lacks completeness for a write operation. It does not specify CSV formatting (quoting, escaping), conflict resolution (overwrite vs append), or error behavior. With no annotations and an output schema not shown, the agent has insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'rows' parameter by specifying it must be a JSON array of objects. However, it does not explain 'filepath' (path format or locality) or 'delimiter' (null semantics or allowable values), leaving gaps that the schema alone does not fill.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes rows to a CSV file, specifying the action ('Write rows') and resource ('CSV file'). It differentiates from siblings like table_table_read (which reads) and file_file_write (which writes raw data) by focusing on CSV rows. The requirement that rows be 'a JSON array of objects (string)' adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for writing tabular data to CSV but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like file_file_write or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, conflict handling, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by mentioning it returns a sorted list of ${variable} names, but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., no variables found, invalid input) or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks discussion of edge cases like duplicate variable names, sort order specifics, or empty strings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name 'template' and type string, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'extract' and resource 'variable names from a template string', and distinguishes it from sibling template tools like render or validate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as template_template_validate or template_template_render. Missing prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the return shape but does not state whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not explicit), what happens if the timer does not exist, or if there are any side effects. The minimal description leaves important behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence with a hint of output structure, front-loaded with '[timer]'. No extraneous information, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks context about error handling, prerequisites (e.g., timer must exist), and how to find timer names. It is adequate for a simple get operation but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter: 'name' (required string). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what the name refers to or any constraints. The parameter is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get remaining countdown time.' It specifies it returns remaining_ms, remaining_s, and expired. The prefix '[timer]' groups it with timer tools, and it is distinct from siblings like timer_countdown_list and timer_countdown_start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. The context implies it is for checking the remaining time of a countdown timer started via timer_countdown_start, but no exclusion criteria or alternate tool suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states it starts a countdown and returns an object. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether the countdown runs in the background, if it can be stopped, or any concurrency limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with '[timer]' and the action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description partially covers what the tool returns, but lacks context on how the countdown behaves (e.g., blocking vs. non-blocking, resource management) and how to interact with it afterward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description merely restates the purpose of 'seconds' without adding meaning to 'name' or providing format constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('start a countdown') and the resource ('for N seconds'), and it specifies the return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like timer_countdown_list or timer_timer_start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timer_timer_start or timer_countdown_remaining.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses core behavior and output but lacks details on error handling, depth limits, or duplicate key handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff; front-loaded with purpose and output structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic behavior and output but lacks parameter explanations and edge-case handling, making it moderately complete for a simple transformation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description does not explain the 'record' or 'sep' parameters despite mentioning dot-notation and arrays.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (flatten) and resource (nested dict) with specific output format (dot-notation, arrays indexed as key.0). Distinguishes from siblings like unflatten.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly suggests use for flattening nested structures but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. other tools like transform_unflatten or mr_flatten.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states that the tool removes specified keys and returns both a result and omitted keys, but does not clarify whether the input dict is mutated (likely not, given the return structure) or specify behavior for missing keys. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the operation and return format, with a '[transform]' prefix for categorization. Every word adds value, with no redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (removing keys from a dict), the description provides a minimal but incomplete understanding. An output schema exists (presumably documenting return shape), but the description does not address edge cases like missing keys or non-string keys, nor does it specify that 'keys' should be a list of strings. It is adequate but lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description fails to compensate: it does not explain that 'record' is the input dict and 'keys' is an array of keys to remove, nor does it specify expected types (e.g., keys should be strings). This leaves agents uninformed about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'dict' (dictionary), identifying the operation as removing specified keys. It distinguishes itself from sibling transform tools like 'transform_transform_pick' (keep keys) and 'transform_transform_rename' (rename keys) by explicitly mentioning removal and the return of omitted keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'transform_transform_pick' or 'transform_transform_merge'. It neither specifies prerequisites nor mentions any constraints (e.g., keys must be strings), leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the operation's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral info: checks scheme and host, returns boolean and details. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state side-effects or limitations (e.g., does it fetch?). Adequate but could be more precise.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose ('Validate a URL') and follow with core behavior and return type. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and output schema in description, it covers basic expectations. However, missing parameter description for 'allowed_schemes' and lack of default scheme list make it incomplete for someone unfamiliar with URL validation nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only indirectly covers the 'url' parameter (valid scheme/host) and ignores 'allowed_schemes'. This parameter's purpose and usage are left unexplained, requiring user inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates a URL by checking scheme and host, with explicit return fields. The verb 'Validate' and resource 'URL' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling validators (e.g., email, IP) by name and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validator_validate_email or validator_validate_ip. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it or avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses return format and sorting behavior but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It adds moderate transparency beyond the name but lacks full 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence with metric options and return format. It is front-loaded with the core action. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main purpose and return format, but lacks details on how to use 'name', 'query' (e.g., array format), 'top_k', and 'threshold'. The output schema exists but is not shown, so completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'metric' parameter (listing allowed values) but provides no explanation for 'name', 'query', 'top_k', or 'threshold', leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find nearest neighbours' in a vector store, with supported metrics (cosine, euclidean, dot) and return format. It unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like vector_store_vector_add or vector_store_vector_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other vector store operations). The description does not mention prerequisites, contraindications, or scenarios where another tool would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'get full definition', implying no side effects, but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or output format. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler. Includes category prefix '[alert]' for context. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and one parameter, the description is adequate but doesn't explain what 'full definition' entails or how it compares to other alert tools. Could be more complete for a retrieval tool among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the single parameter 'name' as 'by name', adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Name' label. For a simple parameter, this is sufficient context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full definition of an alert rule by name'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like alert_alert_list (list only) and alert_alert_define (create/update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like alert_alert_list or alert_alert_define. Doesn't specify prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It correctly indicates retrieval (no mutation) and output structure, but omits details like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently front-loads the action and concludes with the return type. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 an output schema (partially described), the description covers the core function but lacks context on ordering, default behavior for limit, or how 'count' and 'total' differ. It is functional but misses opportunistic details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description links parameters (rule, severity, limit) to concrete meanings (filter by rule name, severity, limit). This adds value over the bare schema, but does not specify formats (e.g., string vs enum) or defaults, missing a chance to fully compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'fired alert history' with specific filters (rule name, severity, limit) and explicitly lists the return format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alert_alert_list (list alert definitions) and alert_alert_get (single alert).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are more appropriate for other scenarios (e.g., for current alerts use alert_alert_list).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates the tool returns {lines, count} and exports events, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption for large exports). The description is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a fragment. It front-loads the core purpose ('Export events as JSON lines') and immediately lists parameters and return structure. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, output schema exists) the description covers the main use: export with filters and return format. It lacks explicit mention that after/before are timestamps and event_type values may come from audit_audit_types, but the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, it is fairly complete for a basic export tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly states 'Filter by event_type, after, before', which clarifies their purpose as filters. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names and types. However, it does not specify the expected format for after/before (e.g., Unix timestamp) or the possible values for event_type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports audit events in JSON lines format, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_audit_search or audit_audit_log by specifying 'export' and the output format, though it could explicitly differentiate from similar tools like audit_audit_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering by event_type, after, before, which implies use cases, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_audit_search for complex queries, audit_audit_get for single events). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description implies a read-only operation by listing outputs but does not disclose any side effects or performance implications. Acceptable for a simple stats tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates outputs without excess words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers expected outputs; minor gap in defining 'token_estimate'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description does not explain the single 'text' parameter beyond its name, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('return stats about text') and lists specific metrics (char_count, token_estimate, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling chunking tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chunker_chunk_text; lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial behavior (only sets keys not present) but omits other traits like idempotency, error conditions, or return value. Some transparency is provided but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core behavior efficiently. The [config] prefix provides context, and the dash separates purpose from constraint. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool requires two parameters (one nested object) and has an output schema, the description is too terse. It fails to explain what 'name' refers to or what the output is. The agent may struggle to use the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not clarify the 'name' parameter or the structure of 'defaults,' leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets multiple defaults and specifies that it only sets keys not already present. This distinguishes it from siblings like config_config_set which likely overwrites. The verb-resource structure is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to set defaults without overwriting existing keys) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The distinction from config_config_set is hinted but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format but does not specify if the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should cover behavioral aspects more thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and gets to the point immediately. However, it sacrifices parameter explanation for brevity, which would be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool, the description provides the core purpose and return value. Missing details about config store context and parameter types limit its completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'name' or 'keys' represent, leaving their meanings implicit. This is insufficient for proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Assert' and resource 'required keys' in config context, specifying the return format '{ok: bool, missing: [...]}'. This distinguishes it from sibling config tools like get, set, delete, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidelines are provided; the tool’s purpose implies it should be used to validate required keys exist in a config store, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates it returns the current datetime, which is inherently non-destructive. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not confirm safety or lack of side effects, which is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, concise and front-loaded with a tag, containing no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered, but the description omits explanation of the timezone parameter, leaving a significant gap for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'timezone' is not explained in the description; schema-coverage is 0% with no descriptions. The agent has no guidance on how to use or omit it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return the current date and time as ISO 8601', providing a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling datetime tools that perform other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. It implicitly serves as a simple clock, but lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses sensitive variable hiding, which is excellent. However, it fails to clarify the interaction between the `default` parameter and the 'null' return when the variable is unset, leaving ambiguity about exact behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three short sentences without redundancy. Each sentence adds value: purpose, return type, and special behavior. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, return, and hidden behaviors. However, it misses key details about the default parameter and error handling (e.g., what happens if the key is invalid). With no output schema details provided, agents may lack full clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly covers `key` but omits any explanation of the `default` parameter, which is defined in the schema. This leaves agents unaware of how to use the default fallback.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets the value of a single environment variable, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like `env_env_list` by focusing on a single variable and also mentions sensitive variable behavior, which is unique to this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need a single variable value but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `env_env_list` or `env_env_set`. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, though the hidden behavior hint is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose important behaviors: default inclusion of count (include_count), handling of edge cases (zero, negative), and automatic pluralization logic (e.g., simply appending 's'?). The example is helpful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus an example—with no redundant information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple pluralization tool, the description covers the core function but lacks details on the include_count parameter and edge cases. An output schema exists but is not shown, so some completeness is assumed. However, more context about default behavior would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 4 parameters (count, singular, plural, include_count) with 0% schema description coverage. Description adds meaning for count and singular via example, and mentions plural, but does not explain include_count. Partially compensates but leaves a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: pluralizing a word based on a count, with an example and mention of optional custom plural form. It distinguishes itself from other format_* tools by its specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for formatting plural words, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or contrasts with siblings are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the basic operation but does not disclose important behaviors: what happens if arrays are of unequal length, if inputs are not valid JSON arrays, or if there are any side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core function but omits important contextual details such as handling of mismatched array lengths or input validation. Since an output schema exists, return values are assumed to be defined, but the description could be more complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the parameter names ('left' and 'right') are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema indicates. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already conveys the intended inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('zip'), the resource type ('two JSON arrays'), and the output format ('[{left, right}, ...] pairs'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'map_reduce_mr_filter' or 'map_reduce_mr_map'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when you need to pair elements of two arrays), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites (e.g., arrays must be JSON arrays), or mention alternative tools. Usage context is implied but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains that no tokens are consumed and shows return fields, which is good for a read-only operation. However, it does not mention idempotency, safety, or failure modes, and there are no annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and return format. However, it could benefit from more structured layout (e.g., listing parameters or return fields).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the return shape is summarized, the lack of parameter documentation is a notable gap. Given the tool's simplicity, it is partially complete but requires the agent to rely on parameter names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation for the two parameters (name and cost). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if a request is allowed without consuming a token, specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like rate_limit_limiter_consume and rate_limit_limiter_acquire by emphasizing non-consumption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for dry-run checking without consuming tokens, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (consume, acquire) makes the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure including positions and groups, but lacks details on side effects or performance. Still, it adequately describes a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a list of return fields. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context. For a tool with 3 undocumented parameters, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explain the parameters (pattern, text, flags) beyond what is in the schema, failing to add any semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search anywhere in text for the first match' and enumerates the return fields, distinguishing it from siblings like regex_match (full match) and regex_findall (all matches).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (first match search) but does not explicitly guide when not to use or mention alternatives like regex_match or regex_findall.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses automatic retry on non-zero exit and exponential back-off, but lacks details on default max_attempts (null behavior), side effects (output capture), and environment constraints. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden but only partially meets it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Run', and includes essential keywords (shell command, automatic retry, exponential back-off). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain parameter defaults or the behavior of null values for max_attempts. For a tool with four parameters and a retry pattern, more context is needed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the four parameters beyond the implicit 'command'. Terms like max_attempts, delay_seconds, and backoff_factor are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer from names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a shell command with automatic retry, distinguishing it from sibling tools like retry_retry_http (HTTP) and process_run (without retry). It also mentions exponential back-off, making the purpose specific and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a shell command may fail and needs retry, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., process_run for single attempts). No exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, and description only says 'Remove all scheduled tasks' without disclosing irreversible effects, permissions needed, or impact. Lacks transparency for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with helpful '[scheduler]' prefix. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal description for a destructive tool with no parameters and an output schema. Does not mention return value or safety considerations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema, so no need to explain beyond the schema. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Remove all scheduled tasks' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like scheduler_cancel_task (cancel specific) and scheduler_list_scheduled (list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like scheduler_cancel_task or safe usage. No warnings about destructiveness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose side effects, performance, error conditions, or data constraints beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action and essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple aggregate but could mention output format or file prerequisites; output schema exists so return value not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds enumeration for 'operation' but does not describe 'filepath' or 'column' beyond names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes an aggregate over a column in a CSV/TSV file, listing operations. It distinguishes from siblings like table_table_filter or table_table_columns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. The description implies its use for aggregation but lacks scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool can start or restart a stopwatch, implying it resets if already running. However, no further behavioral details are provided (e.g., impact on existing timers, error handling). With no annotations, more depth would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the key action and return value. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. It omits edge cases or error states, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely calls it a 'named' stopwatch, which adds little meaning beyond the schema. No constraints or format hints are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Start (or restart) a named stopwatch') and explicitly mentions the return format. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like timer_timer_stop or timer_timer_lap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timer_timer_reset or timer_timer_lap. Context within sibling tools is not leveraged to clarify use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the basic behavior (start server, wait for POST, return body/headers) but lacks details on blocking nature, timeout defaults, error handling, or port behavior. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's action and use cases. It is front-loaded with the key behavior, but could be restructured to include parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, output schema), the description covers the main behavior but omits critical parameter details and default behaviors. This leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any of the three parameters (path, timeout, port). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain these parameters. The agent is left to infer from parameter names, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts an HTTP server to wait for a POST webhook and returns the body and headers. It lists specific use cases like payment callbacks and GitHub webhooks, making the purpose distinct and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage contexts (payment callbacks, GitHub webhooks, form submissions). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but given no sibling webhook tools, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return format {valid: true/false} and the action of checking well-formedness. However, it does not mention edge cases, error handling, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the [xml] prefix is slightly redundant given the tool name, and some context about usage could be added without much verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple validation tool with one parameter, the description covers the input and output adequately. It lacks details about error conditions or schema validation, but the tool's scope is narrow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. The description clarifies that the parameter is an XML string, but does not specify format constraints or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Check' and resource 'XML string' are clear, and the description specifies 'well-formed', distinguishing it from sibling XML tools like xml_xml_extract or xml_xml_findall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., when to use xml_xml_validate vs regex_regex_validate for XML). Only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or is rate-limited. Being a stats tool, it likely is safe, but the description does not confirm this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence clearly stating purpose and return object. Structure is front-loaded with the tool's function and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and no parameters, the description covers the core functionality. It names specific metrics (fire_count, last_fired) and return shape. Could mention how 'per rule' is determined, but overall sufficient for a tool without parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Description implicitly confirms no parameters are needed by focusing on the aggregation task. No additional param details are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool aggregates stats per rule, listing fire_count and last_fired, and returns a structured object. It distinguishes itself from siblings like alert_alert_list and alert_alert_history by its aggregation purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as alert_alert_list or alert_alert_get. The description only states what it does without indicating contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds output format (hex) and purpose, but lacks details like cryptographically secure nature or side effects. No annotations to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and use cases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with optional param; description covers output and use cases but omits parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has one parameter (length) with 0% description coverage; description does not explain the parameter's meaning or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it generates random bytes and returns hex, with explicit use cases (nonces, salts, IVs). Distinguishes from sibling crypto tools like uuid4 or generate_token.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description gives context for when to use (nonces, salts, IVs) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that all subscribers (including wildcard) are notified and the return structure, but omits details like idempotency, error handling, or whether the topic must pre-exist. Basic transparency, but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence with the return structure appended, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Ideal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic publish action and return value, but lacks details like topic existence requirements, error conditions, and data validation. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the 'data' parameter is the event payload but does not explicitly describe parameters. The names 'topic' and 'data' are self-explanatory, but no explanation of format, constraints, or defaults is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'publish' and the resource 'event to a topic', and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on the publication action. It also specifies the return value structure, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for publishing events but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., subscribing, clearing topics). No exclusions or context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the create-if-missing behavior, but does not mention encoding, error handling, or what happens if the path is a directory. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information with minimal waste. It could potentially be structured more informatively, but it is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key edge case (missing file creation). It omits some details but is largely complete for the typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details beyond the parameter names ('path' and 'content'). For a tool with no parameter descriptions in schema, the description should provide context like path format or content encoding, which it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (append content to an existing file) and includes the critical behavior of creating the file if missing. This distinguishes it from siblings like file_write (overwrite) and file_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 (e.g., file_write). The description implies using it to add content without overwriting, but it doesn't state when it should be preferred or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool shows three categories of changes without side effects. However, it does not mention whether it modifies state or any other behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with [git] prefix. No wasted words, concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema, so return format is documented elsewhere. Description covers main purpose but omits parameter details. For a simple read-only tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not mention the single parameter 'repo_dir'. The schema provides a title but no description, and the description adds no parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Show' and resource 'working tree status', listing specific categories (staged, unstaged, untracked). It distinguishes from siblings like git_git_diff (shows diffs) and git_git_log (log history).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose (show status), but the description lacks guidance on prerequisites or when it is appropriate compared to other git tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral information: returns a list or error on cycle. However, it does not disclose whether the graph must exist, whether the tool modifies the graph, or what happens for invalid input. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description. Overall, transparency is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information (return topological order, error on cycle) is front-loaded. No unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks context about the graph name parameter (e.g., how to specify the graph) and error handling beyond cycle detection. The tool is a basic query, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'name' is required and its purpose is only vaguely implied by the '[graph]' prefix. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., graph identifier, file path). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 return the topological order of a graph as a list, or an error if the graph has a cycle. It specifies the verb (return), resource (topological order), and distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_graph_has_cycle (which only checks for cycles) and graph_graph_ancestors (which returns ancestors, not a total order).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining topological ordering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it could mention that graph_graph_has_cycle can be used first to check for cycles, or that this tool is for linear ordering. No explicit guidelines or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fully describes the return structure (list of tables, rows, cells), which is transparent about what the agent will receive. No side effects mentioned; but for a read-only extraction tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, return format, and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is nearly complete, though could mention extraction behavior (e.g., <table> tags only or nested tables).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one 'html' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description only implies it is the HTML source via context ('Extract from web pages'), but does not explain expected format, encoding, or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts all HTML tables and describes the return format. It is specific about the resource (HTML tables) but does not distinguish from sibling tools like html_html_links or html_html_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a brief usage suggestion: 'Use to extract structured tabular data from web pages.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral insight. It states that keys in the patch override the base, indicating a shallow merge approach, but does not clarify if the merge is deep, how arrays are handled, or that inputs must be valid JSON strings. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It uses a clear prefix '[json]' and front-loads the action, with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two string parameters, output schema exists), the description provides the essential purpose. However, the lack of parameter descriptions and missing behavioral details (e.g., deep merge depth) leaves gaps that could hinder correct invocation, especially for new users.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lacks descriptions for both parameters (0% coverage). The description only implicitly refers to the parameters as 'base' and 'patch' without explaining that they should be JSON strings or providing examples. This forces the agent to infer meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool merges two JSON objects with a specific override behavior. It includes a helpful '[json]' prefix and distinguishes this tool from siblings like json_json_filter or json_json_get by focusing on merging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for merging JSON objects, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like json_json_set or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses OS-specific backend and error handling (returns error string instead of raising). However, it does not mention limitations like display requirement or return value format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence conveying purpose, with a second sentence for a critical behavioral detail. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior and a notable error-handling detail, but lacks context about platform limitations (Linux/macOS only) and environmental prerequisites. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not elaborate on the meaning of 'title' or 'message' beyond their names. It adds no constraints, formatting hints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and resource ('desktop notification popup'), with implementation details that distinguish it from siblings like notify_bell (audio) and notify_notify_file (file-based).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for desktop notifications but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the three algorithms' behaviors (e.g., fixed window, sliding no burst, token bucket with burst), which adds transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or error conditions. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but partially fulfills it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence with a leading tag and algorithm notes. Every word adds value. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter relationships or usage. It only covers algorithm semantics. The output schema exists but is not described; per rules, that is acceptable. However, the description leaves significant gaps about parameters like window_seconds and rate_per_second.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only adds semantic meaning for the 'algorithm' parameter by describing its three options. The other five parameters (name, max_calls, window_seconds, rate_per_second, burst_capacity) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer from the schema, which lacks descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a named rate limiter' and lists three algorithms with behavioral summaries. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rate_limit_limiter_acquire or rate_limit_limiter_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 others. The description implies usage for creating rate limiters but does not provide context like prerequisites or alternatives. The algorithm descriptions offer some guidance on selecting an algorithm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auto-normalization and return format, but lacks info on replacement behavior, seeding, errors, or parameter defaults. Without annotations, more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise segments: name, purpose, key behavior, return. No superfluous text; front-loaded with essential info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description omits parameter interactions, defaults, and edge cases for a 5-param tool with zero schema coverage. Incomplete for robust agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Describes weights auto-normalization and output format, partially compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, items, n, seed, and replacement are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Weighted random selection' with auto-normalized weights and return format, distinguishing it from sibling samplers like random_choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for weighted sampling but provides no guidance on when to use vs alternatives like sampler_random_choice or sampler_sample_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing machines, error handling, or permission requirements. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Efficiently communicates core information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of return value (output schema exists but unaddressed), default behavior for states parameter, and prerequisites. For a creation tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description explains the 'states' parameter as a list of valid state names, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, 'name' and 'initial' are not elaborated, and schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'named state machine', explains parameters briefly, and references a sibling tool for the next step. Distinguishes from siblings like sm_add_transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates the tool is for creating a state machine and hints at next steps with sm_add_transition. However, lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites like ensuring name uniqueness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description provides the return format ({deleted: name}) and error condition (not found). However, it does not disclose irreversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus return info. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one required parameter, the description covers the action, return value, and error case. It is mostly complete, though missing minor context like requiring the template to exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies that 'name' is the template identifier via 'saved named template' and the return value, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, more clarity would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('saved named template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like template_template_get, template_template_save, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., template_template_save or template_template_render). The description only states what it does, not context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the return format and error behavior ('or an error if not found'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not cover side effects or permissions, but for a read-only get operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose and return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return format. However, it lacks context about edge cases, relationship to sibling tools, and validation requirements for the 'name' parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter. The description does not provide additional semantics like valid name format, case sensitivity, or relationship to other template tools. It only conveys the parameter's role implicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a saved named template'), and specifies the return data: source string and variable list. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like template_template_list and template_template_render.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a specific template's content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, disclosing that templates are stored in-memory for the session and that it returns the template name and variable list. It does not cover error scenarios like duplicate names or invalid template strings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by relevant details. No redundant or irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (details unknown) and many siblings, the description covers the basics but lacks parameter details that the 0% schema coverage fails to provide. It partially fills gaps but is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning: it implies 'name' is the template identifier and 'template' is the content, but does not explain the format or syntax of the template string. This leaves ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool saves a named template for later reuse, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like template_template_delete, template_template_get, and template_template_render by focusing on saving.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context about in-memory session storage, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like template_template_validate, template_template_render, or template_template_list. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format and that it runs the command N times, but omits side effects (e.g., command might produce output, modify files), timeout behavior, or error handling. Minimal but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with tool purpose and return format. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has an output schema (return values described in description), but input parameters are not explained. Given low complexity (3 params, 1 required), description is partially complete but missing parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (command, runs, timeout_s). It only mentions 'N runs' but does not clarify that 'runs' is the parameter name. Fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it benchmarks a shell command with N runs and returns timing metrics (avg, min, max, total ms). It distinguishes from sibling timer tools like timer_timer_start (stopwatch) and timer_timer_elapsed (elapsed time).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for benchmarking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like timer_timer_start or timer_countdown_*. No when-not or alternative tools mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format but does not mention whether the tool mutates the input, requires permissions, or has side effects. The missing key behavior is partially explained via the 'missing' field in output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence and a brief prefix. Every word is informative and front-loaded, leaving no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and nested parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic action and return shape but lacks details on edge cases like missing keys (beyond 'missing' field) and data type expectations. Completeness is acceptable but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the field titles. It does not explain key format, nested key behavior, or constraints on the array elements. The output schema may compensate, but parameter semantics remain underdescribed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Extract', the resource 'specified keys from a dict', and the output format '{result, picked, missing}'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling transform tools like omit and rename by specifying the action of picking keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for extracting specific keys but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like transform_omit or provide guidance on when to use this versus other transform tools. No exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates that the tool performs validation and returns a specific result object, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention edge cases, error handling, or side effects. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose with active verb and resource, followed by a concise return type spec. No superfluous words; every element is necessary and earned its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, simple validation) and the presence of an output schema inferred from the description, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks details on flag options, error behavior, and interaction with sibling tools. Could be more comprehensive for a generic validator.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds context for 'value' and 'pattern' by relating them to 'string' and 'regex pattern'. The 'flags' parameter is not explained at all. The description partially compensates but does not fully define each parameter's meaning or expected format, such as valid flag values or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Validate a string) and the resource (a string against a regex pattern), and distinguishes it from sibling validators like validate_email or validate_ip by specifying it works with arbitrary patterns. The return structure is also provided, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need regex validation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like validator_validate_email for specific formats. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the required signature but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or state changes. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with output schema (presumably documenting return). Description covers essential purpose and constraint (function signature) adequately for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0%, but description implies source is Python code and name is identifier. Does not explicitly detail each parameter beyond context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Register custom step function from Python source' and specifies required function signature. Distinguishes from sibling tools like workflow_workflow_define and batch_fn_define.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions the required function signature but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., batch_fn_define or other workflow tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions returning occurrence counts, but does not disclose limitations like handling of namespaces, attributes, error behavior, or input size. Without annotations, more behavioral context is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the what then the why. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for the purpose of exploring tag names. It covers what and when, though more detail on output format could be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is the XML string, which is self-explanatory from the schema. The description adds 'document' context but does not provide additional meaning beyond the obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Return all unique tag names in the document with occurrence counts', using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other XML tools (like xml_extract, xml_find) by focusing on tag name enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is 'useful for exploring an unfamiliar XML structure', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the condition (fn(item) is truthy) and return format ({results, total, kept, rejected}). However, it does not clarify what 'fn' represents (e.g., a string expression or function name) or any side effects. Basic transparency is present but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus a return format note. Every word is purposeful; no filler or redundancy. For a simple filtering operation, this is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given moderate complexity (2 required params, no enums, no nested objects) and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output shape. However, it lacks details about the fn parameter's syntax and potential error conditions. An agent might not know how to construct valid fn strings without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'fn' parameter's role in the filter condition ('fn(item) is truthy') and outlines the return structure, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the type or format of 'items' or 'fn' (e.g., that fn is a string evaluable expression).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Keep items where fn(item) is truthy'. The verb 'Keep' appropriately indicates filtering, and the resource is the items array. It distinguishes from sibling batch tools like batch_batch_map (which transforms each item) and batch_batch_partition (which splits based on condition).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. The description implies filtering is the purpose, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when you need to transform items instead). Siblings like batch_batch_map and map_reduce_mr_filter exist, but no comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It explains function signatures but omits important details like scope, persistence, error handling, and return value of registration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with code examples, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the core information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic registration behavior but lacks details on return values, function lifecycle, and interaction with other batch tools. Adequate for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all parameters (name, source, is_reducer) with examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it registers a named function for batch operations, with specific examples for map/filter and reduce signatures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_batch_map and batch_batch_reduce.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides minimal guidance on when to use which function signature (map/filter vs reduce based on is_reducer), but does not discuss when to use this tool vs alternatives like batch_builtin_fns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool modifies the database, including destructive operations like DROP TABLE. However, it lacks explicit warnings about irreversible actions, permissions, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it falls short of being fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the prefix '[database]'. It efficiently conveys the core function. While it could be structured with bullet points for examples, it is already lean and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (database modification with two parameters and an output schema), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not specify supported SQL syntax, output behavior, or error handling. However, it covers the basic purpose and examples, making it adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'sql' parameter format, SQL dialect expectations, or the 'params' parameter for bind variables. This leaves the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs SQL statements that modify the database, listing examples like INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, CREATE TABLE, DROP TABLE. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as database_db_query (which presumably reads data) and database_db_schema (which retrieves schema).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for modifying the database, which differentiates it from querying tools like database_db_query. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'For read-only queries, use database_db_query'). Still, the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Subscribe to a topic' without describing side effects, persistence, duplicate handling, or whether it creates a lasting subscription. The behavioral impact is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a valuable usage tip. Every part is essential and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, simple subscribe action), the description covers the essential concept. However, it omits details about the return value (despite an existing output schema), subscription lifecycle, or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains topic as a string and clarifies that '*' subscribes to all events. For subscriber, it defines it as 'a name string identifying who receives the events,' which adds important context beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Subscribe to a topic,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'event_bus_bus_publish' (sends events) and 'event_bus_bus_unsubscribe' (removes subscription) by focusing on subscription. The special case for topic '*' adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a usage tip for '*' to receive all events, which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'unsubscribe' to remove), leaving the decision to the agent's understanding of context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'list', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or other behaviors. Acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that captures the core functionality without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, has output schema) and the description adequately states its purpose. While it could mention expected output format, the existence of an output schema compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'specific topic', adding minimal semantic value. It fails to clarify the format or allowed values of the required topic parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'subscribers to a specific topic', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bus_subscribe and bus_publish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. The description implies usage for viewing subscriptions, but lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core function (returning top-level keys) but does not mention behavior for non-object inputs, error handling, or performance implications. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It directly states the action and result, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks context on input validation (e.g., what if input is not a valid JSON object) and error conditions. Given the existence of an output schema, return value details are not required, but additional behavioral notes would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'data'. The description adds meaning by implying that 'data' should be a JSON object string, which goes beyond the type 'string'. It clarifies the expected format, though it could be more explicit about validity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'top-level keys of a JSON object', and the output format 'as a JSON array'. It distinguishes itself from sibling JSON tools like json_json_get, json_json_filter, etc., which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, such as when to use json_json_get for specific values or json_json_keys for extracting key names. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return shape '{released, lock}' and ownership constraint, but does not mention error behavior (e.g., if lock doesn't exist or owner mismatch). With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information. It could include parameter descriptions but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema explicitly shown, the description covers purpose, constraint, and return type. However, missing parameter clarifications and error handling leave some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain parameters 'name' or 'owner'. The user must infer meaning from context, which is insufficient for precise invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'release' and the resource 'lock', and specifies the ownership constraint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lock_lock_acquire and lock_lock_release_all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Only owner may release', providing a clear precondition. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context from sibling names implies when to use this vs. lock_lock_release_all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return value but fails to describe side effects, such as whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if the owner has no locks, or any potential destructive consequences. The description is minimal and lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a return value note. It conveys essential information without superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place, and the key points are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, the affected entity, and the return structure. However, it lacks some behavioral guidance and usage context, but these are partially mitigated by the clear function name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate. The description only restates the parameter's meaning ('owner') without adding constraints, formatting, or examples. For a single simple parameter, the description adds minimal extra value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Release'), the resource ('all locks'), and the scope ('held by owner'). It also specifies the return value. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like lock_lock_release (releases a specific lock) and lock_lock_list (lists locks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to release all locks for a given owner. However, it does not include explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios, such as releasing a single lock or expiring locks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the output fields but does not state that the tool is read-only, safe to call, or whether it requires any permissions. The behavior is largely implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output fields. It is front-loaded with the '[lock]' category prefix and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an existing output schema. However, the description omits whether the stats are global or per-lock, and does not explain the meaning of each field. The output schema may cover details, but the description could be more precise.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output. With no parameters, the description is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it aggregates lock stats and lists three specific fields (total_acquisitions, total_contentions, currently_held). The '[lock]' prefix and the verb 'aggregate' distinguish it from other lock tools like acquire, release, or status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when aggregate statistics are needed but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lock_lock_status' (per-lock status) or 'lock_lock_list'. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It does not mention queue existence requirements, error handling, return value, or side effects. The discrepancy between the schema (item as string) and description (any JSON value) creates confusion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with a helpful prefix '[queue]'. Every sentence adds unique value; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description covers basic purpose and two parameters. However, it lacks context on whether the queue must exist before pushing, any concurrency considerations, or what the output schema contains (despite it being present).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is vital. It explains the meaning of 'item' (any JSON value) and 'priority' (default 0, lower more urgent), compensating for missing schema descriptions. The 'name' parameter is left unexplained but is presumably straightforward.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and resource 'item to the queue', and distinguishes from sibling queue tools like pop, peek, list, etc. The clarification that 'item can be any JSON value' and 'priority is used for priority queues' adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for adding items to a queue but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like pop, peek, or create. No 'when not to use' or alternative name is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and lists returned fields, but does not mention error conditions, permissions, or whether the limiter must exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with a category prefix '[rate_limit]', clearly listing the tool's purpose and output fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status query, the description is mostly complete. It mentions output fields, and given an output schema exists, it doesn't need to elaborate on return values. However, it lacks context on prerequisites or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond its name. It fails to clarify that it refers to the limiter's name, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current state of a limiter' and lists specific fields (count, remaining, algorithm, window size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acquire, check, create, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and 'status' context, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says it returns statistics, without mentioning if it has side effects (e.g., resetting counters), idempotency, or permissions. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence clearly conveys the tool's function with zero wasted words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-input stats tool, it lists return fields but lacks explanation of field semantics (e.g., what 'total calls' means). With an output schema existing, more context could be provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns retry statistics (total calls, retries, successes, failures), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like retry_retry_http and retry_retry_shell that perform retries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., circuit status). The purpose is implied but lacks exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or error behaviors. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return value list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every element is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately lists return fields. It is complete enough for a status tool, though it could mention that the state machine must exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is self-explanatory but the description adds no additional meaning or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to elaborate on the parameter's purpose or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the full status including specific fields (states, current, allowed_next, transition_count). It distinguishes from siblings like state_machine_sm_state which returns only the current state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining comprehensive status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., state_machine_sm_state for just current state). No exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it attempts a transition and returns success/error, but does not explicitly state that it mutates the state machine or requires a valid current state. Without annotations, the burden is on the description; it covers basic behavior but lacks details about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus return format, concise and front-loaded with the '[state_machine]' tag. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied by return format description), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the transition is actually performed (not just attempted) and that 'to_state' must be a valid next state, but overall it informs the agent sufficiently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'to_state' in context ('transition to to_state'), but does not define 'name' (likely the state machine identifier) or elaborate on 'to_state'. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Attempt to transition to to_state,' and specifies the return format. It differentiates from sibling state machine tools (e.g., sm_add_transition, sm_can, sm_state) by focusing on triggering a transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage for triggering state transitions, but does not mention when to prefer this over sm_can (checking transition validity) or other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description indicates a read operation with no side effects, but does not detail error handling or behavior for missing files. Adequate for 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, clear and front-loaded. The '[table]' prefix is somewhat redundant but not excessively verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), description need not detail return values. Covers essential purpose, though error handling is omitted. Adequate for low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'filepath' has 0% schema coverage. Description adds that it expects a CSV/TSV file, but no format details, path resolution, or constraints beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns column names from header row of CSV/TSV files. Distinguishes from sibling tools like table_table_read which reads entire table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like table_table_filter or table_table_read. Usage context is implied by the purpose but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose side effects, performance characteristics, or whether the list includes only active timers. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with a clear prefix '[timer]'. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema likely defines return structure, but description is ambiguous about scope ('all timers' – includes stopped ones?). Adequate for a simple list tool but leaves room for interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info but provides context about output content, which is valuable. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all timers', and specifies the output includes 'elapsed times and lap splits', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like timer_timer_start or timer_countdown_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like timer_timer_elapsed or timer_timer_benchmark. Lacks context for selection among many timer-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It clearly conveys that merging is deep, that later dictionaries overwrite earlier ones, and that the output is a tuple of the merged result and a metadata field. This provides sufficient behavioral context for a simple merge operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, fitting all essential information (action, conflict resolution, return format) into a single line. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., empty input, single dict) and does not clarify whether the input array can contain nested structures beyond dicts. Some additional completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by stating that the input is 'multiple dicts', implying each element of the array should be a dictionary. However, it does not explicitly enforce or explain what happens if non-dict items are provided, and the schema's 'items: {}' permits any type. Some additional parameter clarification would help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('deep merge'), the resource ('multiple dicts'), and the conflict resolution ('later dicts win'). It also specifies the return format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling transform tools like transform_coerce or transform_flatten.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other transform tools or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where merge is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only query (returning stats) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no superfluous words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose, though it could mention the return values are aggregated stats to align with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning for the 'name' parameter. It only says 'for a named store', which is minimal and does not specify valid names, format, or whether the store must exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Return' and the resource 'vector store', and specifies the output fields '{count, dim, max_vectors}', which distinguishes it from siblings like vector_store_vector_list or vector_store_vector_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage 'for a named store' but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not compare to alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions return value but does not disclose side effects (e.g., destructiveness, reversibility, authorization requirements). Important behavioral traits are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus return note. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an expected output schema, the description covers the essential aspects (what, when optional, return shape). Could be slightly enhanced with example or clarification of 'cleared', but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One parameter 'rule' with schema showing optional string/null. Description adds meaning by explaining that omitting rule clears all history. This adds value beyond the schema, which only shows types and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Clear alert history'), the resource ('for a rule'), and the behavior when rule omitted ('or all if rule omitted'). It also mentions return structure. This distinguishes it from siblings like alert_alert_get or alert_alert_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage context (clear history for a specific rule or all), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or conditions. Lacks guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List distinct event types' without disclosing read-only nature, side effects, or auth requirements. A read-only hint would add value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence plus return format. Extremely concise and front-loaded with the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no inputs and a known output schema, the description covers the return format and purpose. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., readonly) and usage guidance, so not perfect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description adds nothing but is clear. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List distinct event types', specifying a verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like audit_audit_log (which lists events) and audit_audit_stats (statistics). Return format is also mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The [audit] prefix and description imply usage for overview, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. Among many audit siblings, no guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists the returned fields but lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or any behavioral traits beyond the return values. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a fully transparent description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that starts with the group name [batch] and concisely lists the returned stats. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stats retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the source (last batch_map) and the returned fields. It could mention if the stats are one-time or persist, but overall it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given zero parameters. The baseline of 4 for 0 params applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns stats from the last batch_map run, specifying the fields: ok, errors, total, elapsed_ms. It distinguishes itself from sibling batch tools by focusing on statistics rather than performing operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a batch_map run but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide guidance on alternatives. It could be improved by specifying that it should be called after batch_batch_map to review results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates a read-only behavior by returning data, but does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or if the statistics are cumulative or reset. The description adds some context but lacks thorough behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a prefix [event_bus] for organization. It is front-loaded with the prefix and then concisely states the output. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main output: total events and per-subscriber counts. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. It could mention whether the stats are since last reset or lifetime, but the information provided is sufficient for a simple stats tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics since there are none to describe. Baseline 3 is appropriate, and the description's mention of output details (events published, per-subscriber counts) is not about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'total events published and per-subscriber call counts', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like event_bus_bus_publish, event_bus_bus_subscribe, etc., by focusing on statistics instead of actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting bus stats, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like event_bus_bus_history or event_bus_bus_subscribers. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It only provides examples and does not disclose behavior for negative numbers, large inputs, or other edge cases. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loading examples that immediately convey the tool's function. Every word is necessary and nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks mention of valid input range or behavior for non-positive integers, which could be useful for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% parameter description coverage in the schema, the description compensates by showing concrete input-output mappings. Although the parameter 'n' is not explicitly defined, the examples effectively convey its meaning. A more explicit description would be ideal, but the examples suffice.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly shows the transformation from integer to ordinal string via examples (e.g., 1 to '1st'), making the purpose unmistakable. It is specific and distinguished from sibling format tools like format_number or format_plural.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when ordinal formatting is needed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses core behaviors: stripping tags, skipping script/style blocks, and preserving paragraph breaks. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'max_chars' parameter (e.g., truncation limit) or address error handling for invalid HTML. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and the omission of the optional parameter's effect is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences that front-load the main functionality and add a usage hint. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and typical use case. However, it fails to describe the 'max_chars' parameter, which is a notable gap in completeness. For a tool with only two parameters, this omission reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define parameters. The 'html' parameter is implied by the tool's purpose, but 'max_chars' is not explained anywhere. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the name suggests, leaving the optional parameter ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool extracts all visible text from an HTML string, stripping tags and skipping script/style blocks while preserving paragraph breaks. It also suggests usage after FetchTool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like html_html_links or html_html_tables which extract specific elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using this tool after FetchTool to make web content readable, providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, the intended use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (listing locks) and mentions the return structure, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or describe any prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two brief sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action and scope, the second describes the return format. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers its functionality. It mentions the return object structure, which reduces the burden on the output schema. For a list tool, it is complete enough, though it could hint at potential empty results or large outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage). With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the tool lists all locks without filters, which aligns with the schema. No additional param info is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'all currently held locks', clearly stating the tool's function. It also specifies the return format '{locks, count}', which adds clarity and distinguishes it from sibling lock tools that perform actions like acquire, release, or check status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like lock_lock_status or lock_lock_stats. There is no explicit when-not to use or mention of preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is straightforward about the action, but with no annotations, it could mention side effects, failure modes, or environment requirements. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with a prefix category. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the action. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the description covers the core action. It could mention that the bell only works in terminal environments, but the return value is handled by the output schema. Almost complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. It clarifies the tool's action without conflicting with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it rings the terminal bell to alert the user, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like notify_notify_desktop or notify_notify_file, which provide different notification methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like desktop or file notifications. It implies a terminal context but does not explicitly state usage conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation by listing active limiters, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention authorization requirements or rate limit on the tool itself. Without annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear tag prefix, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it specifies the category, action, resource, and result scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately explains the tool's purpose for a list operation. It includes the resource ('active limiters') and the output ('current state'). However, it does not mention potential pitfalls, such as whether the list is paginated or applies to a specific scope. Given the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'active limiters', and specifies that it returns their 'current state'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rate_limit_limiter_status (likely single limiter) and rate_limit_limiter_create (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other rate limit tools, such as when checking a specific limiter's status or acquiring a token. There is no mention of alternatives or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It reveals return value structure but lacks details on behavior with flags, errors, or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key info, no fluff. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers return structure and matching scope, but omits flags explanation and error/no-match behavior. Lacks completeness for a regex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description only provides context for pattern and text, not flags. Minimal compensation for missing schema explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool matches a pattern at the START of text and distinguishes from regex_search for matching anywhere, making purpose highly specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to use regex_search for matching anywhere, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait of returning immediately when the circuit is open, but does not cover other aspects like retries, timeouts, or error handling. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading purpose and key behavior. Very concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the core idea but lacks parameter details, return value info, and error conditions. For a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no details on the five parameters. 'Name' and 'url' are implied but method, body, and headers are not explained, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool makes an HTTP call through a named circuit breaker, and explains the behavior when the circuit is open. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_fetch and retry_retry_http by highlighting the circuit breaker pattern.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when circuit breaker behavior is desired, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses basic action but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or behavior for unsubscribed feeds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with '[rss]' marker, no redundant information. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, description suffices for minimal use case but lacks details on error handling, pagination, or default behavior for null count.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description only explains 'name' parameter implicitly. The 'count' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose and behavior unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fetches latest items from a subscribed feed by name, differentiating it from siblings like rss_fetch_feed which likely fetches from an arbitrary URL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions to use list_feeds to see available names, providing good prerequisite guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the return format but does not disclose behaviors like shuffling, order preservation, or how seed affects sampling. The description is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It uses a clear prefix and efficiently conveys the core functionality and return type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the input and output structure adequately. It could mention constraints like non-empty groups, but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains that groups is a dict and n_per_group is the count per group, adding meaning beyond schema names. However, it does not explain the seed parameter, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs balanced sampling by taking n_per_group items from each group key in the input dict, and specifies the return format. This is specific, distinct from siblings like sampler_sample_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for stratified sampling but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., sampler_sample_list for simple random sampling). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (returns a boolean) and non-destructive. The phrase 'currently allowed' implies it depends on the current state of the machine. However, it does not specify error handling (e.g., if state machine doesn't exist) or side effects, but for a simple check, it is sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies the return format. No superfluous words. Front-loaded with the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple boolean check tool with an output schema (return '{allowed: bool}'), the description is largely complete. It explains what it does and what it returns. Missing details like existence requirements or validation, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It gives context: 'name' identifies the state machine, 'to_state' is the target state for the transition. However, it does not explain that 'name' must refer to an existing machine or that 'to_state' must be a valid state defined in that machine. Minimal value added beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if a transition to a given state is allowed, specifying the verb 'Check', the resource 'transition', and the scope 'to_state'. It mentions the return value '{allowed: bool}'. Among sibling tools like state_machine_sm_trigger or state_machine_sm_state, this tool's purpose is distinct as a query for permission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., state machine must exist) or contrast with tools like state_machine_sm_state (get current state) or state_machine_sm_trigger (execute transition). The agent has no context on when to prefer this check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates read-only behavior (filtering, no modification) and output format. However, it omits potential behaviors like file not found errors, performance characteristics, or handling of large files. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and then provide operator details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 required params, no enums, straightforward operation), the description covers the essential aspects: supported file types, operation, operators, and output format. Some details are missing (e.g., filepath resolution), but the tool is still usable. The description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists operators and file type (CSV/TSV). While this adds meaning beyond raw schema, it lacks details on filepath format, column naming conventions, and operator case sensitivity. It partially compensates but leaves room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (filter), target resource (rows in a CSV/TSV file), output format (JSON array), and lists available operators. It distinguishes itself from sibling table_ tools like aggregate, columns, read, write by specifying filtering behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for filtering but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., table_table_read for full data, table_table_aggregate for summaries). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description is the sole source. It implies a read operation by listing, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or effect on countdowns. Acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return fields. It hints at output content ('with remaining times') and covers the essential scope. Slight lack of mention about potential limits or ordering, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying 'all countdowns' indicating no filtering scope, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists all countdowns with remaining times. The verb 'List' and resource 'countdowns' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like timer_countdown_start or timer_countdown_remaining.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where timer_countdown_remaining or other timer tools 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that unmapped keys are kept and returns a structured result with 'result' and 'renamed' keys. Given no annotations, this provides useful behavioral context, though it could mention edge cases like duplicate keys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence that covers purpose and return format. It is front-loaded with the '[transform]' tag, but could be slightly more structured with separators.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple key-renaming tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return shape and unmapped key behavior, though it could clarify what 'renamed' contains (e.g., list of old->new mappings).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies that 'mapping' is an {old: new} object. It does not explain the 'record' parameter or provide examples, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renames keys using a mapping object, with a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('keys'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like transform_transform_pick or transform_transform_omit by explicitly mentioning the mapping and behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 is provided. The description is adequate but lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the mapping behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 discloses the steps structure (name, fn, retries?, etc.) but does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or return value. The hint to use builtin_fns is useful but not sufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with '[workflow]' and 'Define a named workflow'. It packs useful information in few words. Could slightly benefit from mentioning return value, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (workflow definition with multiple parameters, no annotations, output schema present but undocumented), the description covers the basic purpose and step structure but omits key context like overwrite behavior, error scenarios, and the relationship with workflow_step_define. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the structure of the 'steps' array (each step has name, fn, optional fields). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema which only defines steps as an array of any. However, the 'name' and 'description' parameters are not elaborated further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Define' and resource 'workflow', and the title implies it is a workflow definition tool. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_workflow_delete, workflow_workflow_run, etc., by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description hints at usage by suggesting to 'Use builtin_fns to list available fns', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_step_define or other workflow operations. No direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns text content of all elements with given tag, but lacks details on handling of missing tags, nested elements, namespaces, or return format. Output schema exists but not visible. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: one sentence plus example. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple extraction tool with output schema, description covers basic purpose and usage. Missing edge cases (empty results, error handling) but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains xml_string is XML and tag is tag name, with an example. However, it adds no extra detail like case-sensitivity or well-formedness requirements. Minimal value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns text content of all elements with a given tag name. It specifies the verb 'extract' and resource 'text content from XML', with an example clarifying usage. It distinguishes from siblings like xml_xml_findall (which returns elements) and xml_xml_attrs (attributes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 vs alternatives like xml_xml_findall or xml_xml_to_dict. The example implies usage but does not provide context or exclusions. Given siblings, more guidance would help but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields (tag, text, attrs, child tag names) but omits error behavior (e.g., if no match found), performance traits, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage hints. No redundant phrasing; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers input, logic, and output well. An output schema is present, further clarifying return structure. Missing details on edge cases (no match) but otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides XPath examples, adding practical meaning, but does not explicitly describe the 'xml_string' parameter format or the 'xpath' syntax beyond examples. The examples help but leave gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description precisely states the tool finds the first element matching an XPath expression, lists return fields (tag, text, attrs, child tag names), and provides examples. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like xml_xml_findall by focusing on 'first element'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives XPath example patterns indicating common use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xml_xml_findall for multiple matches). No when-not-to-use or failure behavior guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns null if the key does not exist or has expired, which is key behavioral information. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the return behavior (value or null) and the meaning of missing/expired. However, it does not mention whether expired keys are automatically cleaned or any side effects, though for a simple get this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 add meaning beyond the schema for the 'key' parameter. No details on key format, constraints, or examples are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a cached value by key, and specifies the return value (string or null if missing/expired). It differentiates from sibling tools like cache_cache_set, cache_cache_delete, cache_cache_clear, and cache_cache_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a cache set but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache_cache_delete or cache_cache_clear. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds key behavioral detail: constant-time comparison to prevent timing attacks. It also states the return type. However, it does not cover error handling or state modification, though the tool is a simple verification function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first describes the core operation, second adds a critical security note. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (boolean return), the description covers the essential behavior and security aspect. It misses details on the algorithm parameter, but overall is fairly complete for a simple verification tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not describe individual parameters beyond their names, which are self-explanatory for data, secret, and signature, but the optional algorithm parameter's expected values or default behavior are not clarified. Baseline for 0% coverage requires compensation, which is not provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies an HMAC signature against data and a secret key, returning a boolean. This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_hmac_sign (which creates signatures) by specifying the action and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 vs alternatives. The name and description imply it is for verification, contrasting with crypto_hmac_sign for signing, but lacks explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description adds truncation behavior for files >32KB, which is helpful. But lacks mention of error handling (e.g., file not found) or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then important truncation note. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema (not shown), description covers core behavior and truncation. Lacks error conditions, but for a simple read tool, it's nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description adds no detail about the 'path' parameter (e.g., format, relative vs absolute). Agent gets no extra guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Read a file and return its contents' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing from sibling tools like file_file_append or file_file_write. Also notes truncation limit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: read a file. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and no misleading information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a modified JSON string and that the value must be JSON-encoded. Does not mention error handling or path creation behavior, but transparent enough for basic use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words. Highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks handling of invalid inputs, path existence, and value encoding nuances. Sufficient for basic use but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains path uses dot notation and value must be JSON-encoded string. Does not detail 'data' parameter or edge cases (e.g., missing path). Adds moderate value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Set a value at a path in a JSON object' and distinguishes it from sibling json tools like json_json_get, json_json_merge, etc. The resource and action are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the description implies usage for modifying JSON objects by path. Lacks comparison to alternatives like json_json_merge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates that gauges hold the last value set and that the tool returns updated state. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, overwriting behavior, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver the essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds context and return value. No extraneous words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core purpose, example uses, and return value. However, it omits details about parameter behavior (especially tags), potential errors, and whether the gauge is created if missing. While adequate for a simple tool, it leaves gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It implicitly explains 'name' and 'value' through the context, but the 'tags' parameter is not described at all. The description adds limited meaning beyond the schema, especially for the optional parameter, resulting in partial clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set a gauge metric to a specific value.' The verb 'Set' and the resource 'gauge metric' are specific, and the examples (queue depth, memory usage) further clarify. It distinguishes itself from sibling metrics tools like increment, reset, and get by specifying that this sets an absolute value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context by explaining that gauges are useful for queue depth, memory usage, and active connections. This implies when to use this tool over alternatives like increment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would improve guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the fallback behavior from desktop to file log, which is good. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (output schema exists but not described) or any potential side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but falls short on return value transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence explains what it does, the second explains how, and the third explains when to use it. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and usage context adequately. It is missing details about the output and error cases, but those may be covered by the output schema, and the tool is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema parameters 'title' and 'message' have clear names, but the description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least hint at format or constraints (e.g., title max length), but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sends a notification and explains the channel selection logic (desktop first, fallback to file log). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notify_notify_desktop and notify_notify_file by being the automatic best-effort channel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use when a task completes or an important event occurs.' It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., when a specific channel is required) and mentioning alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a log file and returns data, confirming it is a read operation. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), required permissions, or behavior on missing file. The transparency is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No extraneous words or fluff; it earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits handling of edge cases (e.g., missing log file, empty results) and default behavior for optional parameters. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters: 'n' (number of notifications) and 'path' (log file path), which are otherwise undocumented (0% schema coverage). It clarifies the tool's function beyond the schema, though default behaviors for null values are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Return the last N notifications from the log file as a JSON array.' It specifies the resource (notifications from log file) and the result format (JSON array), distinguishing it from sibling notification tools that send or trigger notifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies use for reading notifications, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., notify_notify for sending, notify_bell for a different notification type). No exclusions or contextual guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses kind and maxsize behavior but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite policy, error handling, idempotency). Annotations absent, so description should cover more.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, one sentence plus key details. Front-loaded with main action, no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple creation tool, but lacks mention of return value or error conditions. Output schema exists but description should hint at success feedback.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaningful explanation for kind and maxsize beyond schema (enum values, default, maxsize meaning). Name parameter left without additional info, but overall adds value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create a named queue' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling queue operations by focusing on creation and detailing queue kind and maxsize options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like queue_push or queue_list. Implicitly it is the starting point, but no direct guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It details count behavior (0 replaces all) and backreference support in replacement. However, it lacks mention of error handling, case sensitivity, or the effect of flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits guidance on alternatives (sibling tools) and flags behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining count's default of 0 (which contradicts schema default null but clarifies behavior) and backreferences for replacement. Flags are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs regex replacement: 'Replace occurrences of pattern in text with replacement string.' This distinguishes it from sibling regex tools like regex_findall, regex_match, and regex_split, 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for replacement but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., regex_split for splitting). No exclusions or context for count or flags are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation via 'list', but does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-destructive. No details on error handling or edge cases are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It includes the namespace for context and delivers the purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool returns (list of indexes with doc counts) and the tool has no parameters. The output schema likely covers the structure, so minimal context is sufficient. A small improvement would be to mention common use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the existing schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all indexes' with the specific detail 'with their document counts'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_index_index_create or search_index_index_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as search_index_index_list_docs or search_index_index_status. The description does not include any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states resetting to initial state and clearing history, which are key side effects. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, requires permissions, or if it can fail due to non-existent machine or invalid state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise: one sentence plus a short clarification. Every word adds value, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and one parameter. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., machine not found, invalid state) and expected output, though output schema exists to cover return values. Could be more complete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema provides only types and requirement; description adds meaning: 'name' identifies the machine, 'state' optionally specifies the target state. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the bare schema, given 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool resets a machine to its initial state or a specified state, and clears history. The verb 'Reset' and resource 'machine' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sm_create, sm_delete, sm_trigger, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for resetting state and clearing history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sm_can, sm_state, or sm_trigger. No guidance on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the return format and that the tool checks requirements, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that includes the return structure, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description explains the return values adequately, but could elaborate on what 'missing' and 'extra' mean in relation to template requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description merely restates the parameter names ('template' and 'variables') without adding any meaning about their expected formats, constraints, or behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('a set of variables satisfies a template's requirements'), and distinguishes this validation tool from sibling tools like template_template_render or template_template_save.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for validation before rendering, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions acceptance with or without hyphens, but does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or performance. Adequate for 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence, front-loaded with purpose and return type. Could be slightly more structured but no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and presence of output schema (implied), the description provides key details: action, return object fields, and a format nuance. Sufficient for a simple validation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, only parameter name 'value'. Description adds that the UUID can be with or without hyphens, giving meaningful context beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates a UUID string and specifies the return format. It distinguishes itself from sibling validators by focusing on UUID validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (validate UUIDs) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. No guidance on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor any side effects or caching behavior. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with context, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It provides enough context to understand the purpose and result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what is listed (built-in step function names), which complements the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all built-in step function names, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_workflow_list (lists workflows) and workflow_step_define (defines steps).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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. It is implied for retrieving built-in step function names, but lacks when-not or exclusion details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: attribute handling, mixed content text marker, and list conversion for repeated tags. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., malformed XML) or performance constraints, which is acceptable for a simple converter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second details output conventions. No redundant information, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Highly compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema (inferred), the description covers the essential behavior and output format. Minor gap: lack of error notes, but overall sufficient for a straightforward conversion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage; the parameter 'xml_string' is only named. The description adds that it is an XML document, but no further constraints (e.g., must be valid XML) or format details are provided. The parameter is simple, but more semantics would help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool converts XML to a Python dict (JSON), with specific details on attribute prefix (@) and text content handling. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xml_xml_find or xml_xml_extract which have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when full document conversion is needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: on_error options (null/skip/raise) and the return structure {results, ok, errors, total, elapsed_ms}. It provides clear behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a brief listing. Every part earns its place, no fluff. It front-loads the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action, error handling, and return fields. It is adequate but could add context about batch system or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining fn is applied to each item and listing on_error options. However, it does not further clarify the items parameter or the fn format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it applies a function to each item in a batch, using a specific verb-resource pair 'Apply fn to each item'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_filter, batch_reduce, etc., as a mapping operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for applying a function to each item but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it compare with alternatives. No guidance on when to choose this over other batch tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions return type (hex digest) and supported algorithms, but lacks details on default algorithm, error handling, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences with essential information upfront. No unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, description is mostly complete. Could add a note about input encoding or default algorithm, but sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value by naming data, secret, and listing algorithms. However, it does not detail input encoding or default algorithm behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool signs data using HMAC and returns the hex digest. It specifies the purpose (signing webhook payloads) and distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_hmac_verify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for signing webhook payloads and lists supported algorithms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like crypto_hash_data or crypto_hmac_verify.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format and error condition on unreadable files. No annotations exist, so the description provides necessary behavioral context, though it could mention size limitations or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences with front-loaded purpose and clear output structure. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main functionality, output, and error case. Missing documentation for the context parameter, but otherwise sufficient for a simple file comparison tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description implies path_a and path_b are file paths, but does not explain the optional 'context' parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it compares two files and returns a unified diff with specific output fields. The tag '[diff]' and return structure distinguish it from sibling tools like diff_diff_text or diff_diff_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies file-based comparison vs text-based, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like diff_diff_text or diff_diff_similar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that added words are prefixed with '+', removed with '-', and returns counts. This is adequate for a non-destructive read-only operation, though could mention if it handles whitespace or special cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first explains operation and output, second details return object. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully explains the return object with counts. Parameters are straightforward. Siblings exist but differentiation is minimal. For a simple string comparison tool, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The parameter names 'text_a' and 'text_b' are self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaning beyond 'two strings'. For a simple tool, this is adequate but lacks detail (e.g., expected encoding or format).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compare', the resource 'two strings at the word level', and the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling diff tools (e.g., diff_diff_files, diff_diff_text) by specifying word-level granularity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for word-level comparison, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like diff_diff_text (character-level) or diff_diff_files. No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the variable is visible to child processes and does not affect the parent shell. This is critical behavioral context. It does not mention error handling or return value, but an output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant text. Every sentence adds unique value about scope and effect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers essential behavioral aspects. An output schema likely documents return values, so completeness is adequate. Could mention if errors occur on invalid keys or overwriting behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter names 'key' and 'value' are self-explanatory, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no extra constraints or formatting details beyond the obvious, so it provides minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets an environment variable for the current process, specifying verb and resource ('Set an environment variable'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like env_get or env_list by noting scope and effect on child processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use when you need to set an env var for the current process and its children. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., env_load for loading from files).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It discloses the output contents (subscriber and event counts) but does not mention read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no waste. Every word provides meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could note that topics belong to the event bus, but that is implied by the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all topics with subscriber and event counts. It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'topics', and distinguishes from siblings like event_bus_bus_subscribers which lists subscribers rather than topics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing topics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like event_bus_bus_stats or event_bus_bus_subscribers. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that HTML pages are automatically converted to plain text, which is useful. However, it does not mention other aspects like redirect handling, error behavior, or authentication needs. The conversion detail adds significant value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short sentences, front-loading the purpose and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, return format is covered. However, the description lacks parameter descriptions, which are essential for correct usage. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete in guiding parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 2 parameters, yet the description does not mention the 'url' or 'max_chars' parameters at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches text content from a URL and converts HTML to plain text, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource (URL). It distinguishes from sibling 'search' by stating 'Use search to find URLs; use fetch to read a specific URL.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('to read a specific URL') and when to use the alternative 'search' for finding URLs. This provides clear usage guidance beyond implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description covers the basic behavior (conversion to human string) and the verbose parameter effect. However, it omits details like handling of negative values, zero, large numbers, or decimal seconds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, an example, and a parameter option. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides a clear example and explains the key parameter. However, it does not mention the return type (string) explicitly, though the output schema exists. For a simple formatting tool, the coverage is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The description clarifies the 'seconds' parameter (via example) and explains the 'verbose' parameter (full words versus abbreviations). This adds significant meaning beyond schema types alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool formats seconds into a human-readable string with an example (3661 → '1h 1m 1s'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling format tools by specifying the input and output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other format tools (e.g., format_format_bytes). It only explains the behavior but lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the basic truncation and suffix appending behavior, but does not disclose details like character vs byte counting, handling of null max_length, or any side effects. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundant words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple truncation tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the core functionality and key parameter defaults. An output schema exists (indicated by context signals), so return value documentation is not needed. Could mention the output type, but overall complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value by mentioning the default suffix '…', which is not in the schema. However, it does not fully explain that max_length and suffix are optional, or what happens when max_length is null. The schema provides parameter names but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'truncate', the resource 'text', and the behavior (truncate to max_length, append suffix). It is distinct from sibling format tools which handle other formatting tasks like bytes, currency, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for truncating text with a suffix. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Among the format tools, it is the only truncation option, so context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states it lists graphs with counts but does not explicitly declare that it is read-only or non-destructive. Given the operation type, it is likely safe, but more explicit behavioral disclosure would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action and result. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential purpose and output. Minor missing details like ordering or format are likely covered by the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%). With 0 parameters, the description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all graphs with their node/edge counts.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (graphs), and additional detail (node/edge counts), clearly distinguishing it from sibling graph tools that operate on individual nodes or edges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing all graphs, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_graph_status or graph_graph_nodes. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns text content but does not specify behavior for missing elements, multiple matches, or error conditions. Lacks detail on side effects or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus example, no filler. Information is front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, description is adequate for a simple tool. Covers key input parameters and provides example, though could clarify whether return is a list or concatenation of texts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning by naming parameters and giving an example. Explains 'attrs' is optional and shows format via example, though does not fully describe the attrs object structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it finds elements by tag name and optional attributes, returning text content. The example with 'span' and class distinguishes from sibling tools like html_html_headings and html_html_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for general element selection, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings like html_html_headings. No prerequisites or limitations mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses auto-expire and blocking wait, but does not detail behavior on lock already held, timeout, or reentrancy. Basic transparency but lacks edge-case coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a header line followed by short, clear explanations of each parameter and the return value. No wasted words, front-loaded, easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a locking tool and the presence of an output schema (mentioned), the description covers the main functional aspects: name, owner, TTL, wait, and return fields. However, it could mention default behavior (e.g., wait_s=0) and failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: owner (identifies caller), ttl_s (auto-expire), wait_s (blocking wait). It also describes the return object. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool acquires a named lock and identifies key parameters (owner, ttl_s, wait_s). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lock_lock_try by mentioning 'blocking wait', making the verb+resource+scope specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the blocking acquire via the 'wait_s' parameter but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like lock_lock_try (non-blocking) or lock_lock_status. Guidance on when to use which is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return structure and that it processes all matches, which is sufficient for a read-only regex operation. It could mention that it doesn't modify state, but the behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are direct and no fluff. Every word adds value, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the return description is adequate, but the lack of parameter documentation and minimal differentiation from numerous sibling regex tools leaves gaps. The description could include typical use cases or contrast with other regex tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters (pattern, text, flags). It only adds context about the return format, not the inputs, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema docs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts captured groups from all matches, specifying it returns a list of {match, groups, named_groups} for each match. It distinguishes from siblings like findall or match by focusing on patterns with groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises using when the pattern defines named or numbered groups, giving clear context. Could mention alternatives like findall for patterns without groups, but still provides good guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by listing but doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns (feed names and URLs) without needing to elaborate on return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter info, but no parameters need explaining, so it's clear that no arguments are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all subscribed feed names and their URLs', distinguishing it from sibling tools like rss_fetch_feed, rss_read_feed, rss_subscribe, rss_unsubscribe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for listing subscribed feeds but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other RSS tools or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly notes non-destructive behavior ('copy') and determinism via seed. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or permissions, though none are expected for a shuffling operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value: prefix for categorization, verb, noun, and key behavioral trait (determinism with seed).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (shuffle a list) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core behavior and the non-obvious deterministic aspect. Missing edge case handling (e.g., empty list) but doesn't detract significantly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description adds meaning for 'seed' (deterministic) but for 'items' it only implies 'the list to shuffle'. No elaboration on type constraints or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'return' and resource 'shuffled copy of items'. The prefix '[sampler]' categorizes it among sibling sampler tools, and 'Deterministic with seed' distinguishes it from non-deterministic alternatives like sampler_random_choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The name implies shuffling all items, but does not contrast with sampler_sample_list (which samples a subset). Usage context is implied but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the auto-creation behavior, which is a key side effect not obvious from the schema. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or output format, though output schema may cover the latter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence explaining the action and one clarifying the docs format. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main functionality and important side effect (auto-creation). It lacks discussion of failure modes but is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by specifying that 'docs' is a 'JSON array of dicts', clarifying the expected structure beyond the schema's items: {}.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add documents to an index' and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_index_index_create (which creates an empty index) by mentioning auto-creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as search_index_index_create or search_index_index_search. The description only explains 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the output includes current state and transition count, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or disclose any side effects. It is truthful but not rich in 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with a domain prefix. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality (listing all machines with state and transition count) and an output schema exists. For a simple parameterless tool, it is nearly complete, though more details about output format could be added.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description adds no param info beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'all machines', and includes details about what is returned (current state and transition count). It clearly distinguishes from sibling state machine tools like create, delete, trigger, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to list all machines), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It is minimally adequate with no exclusions or context about prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses that the tool returns a sorted list by name and gives the structure of each item. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a read operation, this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with a category tag '[template]' and immediately states the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides additional useful context (sorted by name, example format). It is largely complete, but could mention potential limitations like number of templates returned or behavior when no templates exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining the return format, including the structure with name and variables. This compensates for the lack of parameters, providing value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'saved named templates'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like template_template_get by indicating it returns all templates in a list. The return format is specified, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like template_template_get, template_template_render, etc. The agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states that only format is checked (not existence or deliverability) and specifies return format. Could mention limitations further, but adequate for 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no superfluous text. Front-loaded label '[validator]' and clear structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema implied), description covers core behavior and return format. Could mention error handling or input restrictions, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by stating it's an email address for format checking, but lacks specifics like length or allowed characters. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (validate), resource (email address), and method (format check, RFC 5322 simplified). Distinguishes from sibling validators like validate_ip or validate_url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use for format-only validation but does not explicitly state when to use or not, nor compares to siblings. No guidance on alternatives like other validators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the return structure (valid, version, is_private, is_loopback). It implies pure validation without side effects, which aligns with the tool's nature. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or invalid input behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single precise sentence with a clear prefix and returns list. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the essential input and output. The output schema is explicitly defined, and the input is simple. Slightly incomplete regarding error cases or validation strictness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for the 'ip' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating it accepts an IPv4 or IPv6 address, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates an IP address (IPv4 or IPv6), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_email or validate_url by specifying the resource type. The return type is also provided, fully clarifying the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used specifically for IP validation versus other validation tools, leaving the usage decision entirely to the agent's inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return object structure (valid, parsed, type, reason) and optional key checking, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though no side-effects or authorization needs are mentioned (which is acceptable for a read-only validator).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loads the purpose, with no wasted words; includes return type and optional feature efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (implied by return description), the description covers the essential behavior, parameter intent, and return format, leaving minor gaps like error handling or performance notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'validate a JSON string' (value) and 'check specific keys' (required_keys), but does not explicitly name parameters or describe their formats, so it adds some but not full meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool validates a JSON string and optionally checks required keys, with a distinct verb and resource that differentiates it from sibling validators (e.g., validate_email, validate_ip).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly suggests use when needing JSON validation or key existence checks, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or comparisons with other validators like validate_type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The behavior is mostly clear from the description: it checks if a number is within the specified min/max range. However, it does not specify behavior when both min_val and max_val are null, which could be confusing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise with a single sentence and the return type, front-loading the key purpose and result format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., both bounds null), but overall it provides sufficient context for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions min_val and max_val are optional with default null, and describes the return structure. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but no further semantics are added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it validates a number within a range and specifies the return structure. It distinguishes from sibling validators (e.g., validate_email, validate_pattern) by focusing on numeric range validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_type or validate_length. It provides no usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description indicates read-only listing but does not disclose authorization, performance, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no extraneous information, appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of output schema, the description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity; lacks only context on output format but schema compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema; description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 params is 4. Schema coverage 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'named stores', and outputs 'vector counts and dimensions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like vector_store_vector_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies simple listing of all stores but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a summary with specific fields, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not detail behavior such as what 'recent runs' means, authentication requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the purpose. Every word is essential and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (0 parameters, has output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the return fields, though 'recent runs' could be more specific. The output schema likely provides further detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters implies a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating what the tool returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning an execution history summary with specific fields (total_runs, ok_runs, failed_runs, recent runs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workflow_workflow_run or workflow_workflow_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving workflow execution history but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the tool returns statistics, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose any behavioral traits beyond the listed output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the return type, and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It is complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, and rule states baseline 4 for zero params. No additional parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'return' and resource 'cache statistics', listing specific metrics (active entries, expired entries, hit/miss counts). It distinguishes from sibling cache tools that perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for obtaining statistics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other cache tools (e.g., for specific entries), nor any exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the token is 'cryptographically secure' and returns a hex string, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter and output schema, the description covers essential aspects like output format and parameter behavior, but could mention error cases or security context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that 'length is the number of random bytes (output will be 2× as long in hex)' and specifies the default (32 bytes → 64-char hex), adding significant meaning beyond the schema which lacks parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate a cryptographically secure random token' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_random_bytes and crypto_uuid4 by emphasizing cryptographic security and hex string output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for secure random token generation but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like crypto_random_bytes or crypto_uuid4, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format {held, owner?, remaining_s?}, which is a non-destructive read operation. No side effects are implied. With no annotations, it provides adequate behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence with no wasted words. It front-loades the purpose and return type clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema that describes the return, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does and what it returns, covering all necessary information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is self-explanatory as the lock name. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 0% and the param is straightforward. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'if lock is held', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like lock_acquire, lock_release, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking lock status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like lock_stats or lock_list. It does not mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only operation returning a summary dict but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or performance considerations. It is adequate but lacks extra 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all necessary information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes output structure. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema that likely defines the return structure, the description adds value by specifying the dict keys and values. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It correctly states no input is required, and the output format is described. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description meets expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get a summary), the resource (all metrics), and the output format (single dict with keys as metric names and values as state dicts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like metrics_metric_get or metrics_metric_list by emphasizing it returns a summary of all metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining an overview of all metrics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., metrics_metric_list or metrics_metric_get). No exclusions or contextual comparisons are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the effect (stop and record), accumulated fields, and return value. However, it does not clarify whether the timer can be restarted or side effects of stopping a non-existent timer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence adds value: action, accumulated stats, return value. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and return. It could mention that the timer must be running, but overall sufficient for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the only parameter timer_id, and the description does not mention or explain timer_id. The agent must infer its meaning from context. Description should explicitly state that timer_id is the ID obtained from timer_start.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (stop a running timer) and resource (timer), distinguishes from sibling metrics_metric_timer_start via the opposite action, and lists accumulated metrics and return value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after starting a timer, but does not explicitly state prerequisites or alternatives. The sibling name 'timer_start' provides context, but more explicit guidance would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists active queues but does not indicate read-only nature, permissions, or any side effects. For a list operation, more clarity on safety would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all necessary information without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It specifies what is listed (active queues) and the information provided (sizes and types).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. According to guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all active queues with sizes and types, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like queue_queue_size which only returns size for a specific queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying 'active queues', but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. However, the sibling list implies this is the go-to for listing all queues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses atomic behavior, token consumption on allow, and return format. It lacks error handling details but provides clear behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema, return values are documented. The description covers core behavior but could benefit from more detail on cost usage and error states.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' or 'cost' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an atomic check and consume operation, and distinguishes itself from siblings like check and consume by being the combined operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates this is the most common operation, implying it should be used instead of separate check/consume for most cases, but doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes output format and group behavior; no annotations to contradict. Does not mention error handling or flags behavior, but for a read-only regex tool, it's mostly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with three clear parts: purpose, group behavior, alternative. Front-loaded and no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic use and differentiation from sibling; lacks explanation of flags parameter and error scenarios. Given output schema exists, return values are partially covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description only implies pattern and text roles and mentions groups. No details on flags parameter or accepted formats, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns non-overlapping matches as a list, specifies group behavior, and distinguishes from sibling regex_findall_with_positions. Verb: 'Return', resource: 'matches', scope: 'all non-overlapping'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides alternative ('use regex_findall_with_positions for positions') and characterizes tool as 'Simple and fast'. Does not state when not to use, but the contrast is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the circuit breaker's state transitions: trips after max_failures, stays open until reset_timeout, then allows a trial call. However, it doesn't address idempotency or behavior on duplicate names, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: one for purpose, one for behavior. No extraneous information; every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core behavior but omits default values for optional parameters (max_failures, reset_timeout_seconds default to null) and what happens when they are null. With an output schema present, return values are not needed, but parameter defaults are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining how max_failures and reset_timeout_seconds affect behavior. It does not cover the 'name' parameter but that is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a named circuit breaker and explains its failure-handling behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like retry_circuit_call or retry_circuit_reset. It uses a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting up a circuit breaker before executing calls, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. More explicit guidance would be beneficial given the many retry-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses the key behavior (non-destructive read) and the return format, but does not mention error conditions like missing timer name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one sentence plus a return specification—with no extraneous words, and the key purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, behavior, and output fields. Missing error handling details but largely complete for common use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond its title, leaving the agent without guidance on its meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('elapsed time'), explicitly stating 'without stopping', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like timer_timer_stop that stop the timer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (check elapsed time without stopping), but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description clearly explains the fallback mechanism and what the tool does. It reveals behavioral traits (play aloud, fallback) but doesn't cover potential failure modes or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main functionality. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (though an output schema exists). It is nearly complete for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types. It does not explain acceptable voice values, default behavior when voice is null, or format requirements for text. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Convert text to speech') and the output ('play it aloud'). The tool name 'voice_speak' is well-chosen and there are no other voice-related siblings, making it distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides helpful context about fallback behavior between neural TTS and system engines, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (none exist) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ({rules, count}) but does not mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The tool has no parameters, reducing the need for extensive behavioral disclosure, but more context would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with a clear label and purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description provides adequate information: the action and return value. It could mention whether the list is paginated or what fields each rule has, but the output schema presumably covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rule, baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all alert rules' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (e.g., alert_alert_get, alert_alert_define) by indicating it returns all rules at once.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for listing all rules, which is distinct from siblings like alert_alert_get (single rule) or alert_alert_define (create). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. Describes core behavior and ttl semantics, but does not mention overwriting behavior, size limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with action. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool and presence of output schema, description covers essential aspects: what it does and how to control TTL. Could mention overwriting behavior for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description explains the role of key, value, and ttl_seconds, including the null meaning. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Store' and resource 'value in the cache under the given key', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, delete, clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on using ttl_seconds for expiration control, including the null case for never-expiring values. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but naming makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the return format {ok, present, missing}, which implies the tool does not modify state and is purely diagnostic. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it meets this well. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like behavior when 'keys' is empty or contains invalid names, but those are minor.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format, followed by a usage example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, return format, and usage context. Output schema exists (implied by the return structure), so the description doesn't need to explain it further. However, the parameter 'keys' is not well described, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'all required environment variables' in the purpose, but the parameter 'keys' is not explained in the description. The schema shows it's an array, but the description doesn't clarify that 'keys' expects a list of environment variable names to check. This is a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks environment variables and returns a specific result structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like env_env_get (which gets a single variable) by focusing on a batch check. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the verb 'check' being a validation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to verify API keys before attempting to call external services.' This provides clear context and a practical scenario, effectively differentiating it from other env tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses two key behaviors: (1) variables are not overwritten if already present, and (2) the return object includes 'loaded', 'skipped', and 'errors' keys. This is sufficient transparency for a simple file-load operation. It does not mention side effects like environment persistence beyond the process, but that is standard. Score 4 as it covers the most important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action and a constraint, the second lists the return shape. Every part is essential, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no required fields, output schema exists). The description explains the return object and the non-overwrite rule. It does not cover error handling beyond the 'errors' key, but the output schema likely documents that. Given the low complexity and presence of output schema, the description is nearly complete. Score 4 for minor omission of null path behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'path' exists with default null and type string|null. The description says 'from a .env file', implying path is the file location, but it does not explain what happens when path is null (maybe uses default .env in current directory) or any expected file format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning; it adds basic context but lacks specifics. Score 3 as it provides partial value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads key=value pairs from a .env file into the current process environment, explicitly mentions that existing variables are not overwritten, and lists the return format. This provides a specific verb+resource action and distinguishes it from sibling env tools (e.g., env_env_set sets individual variables, env_env_get retrieves one).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (loading from a .env file) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like env_env_set or env_env_get. It is clear enough for most scenarios, but a sentence like 'Use this to load multiple variables at once from a file; for individual variables use env_env_set' would improve guidance. Score 4 because it adequately differentiates from other env operations without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature and the exact output structure. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., malformed HTML) or performance traits, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core action and output, and the second adding a usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one string input, defined output schema), the description covers the main purpose and output format. It lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., empty HTML, invalid HTML) but these are minor for a utility tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'html'. The description adds meaning by stating that the HTML input is the source for extraction, but does not provide format or encoding details. Since the parameter is a simple string, the description provides marginal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('headings (h1–h6) from HTML') and clearly states the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like html_html_links or html_html_tables by focusing solely on headings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context ('Useful for understanding page structure') which implies the tool is for extracting headings. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to differentiate from other HTML tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the output format (list of {text, href} dicts) which aids transparency, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like handling malformed HTML or empty results. The operation is simple, so this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three short sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful hint about base_url. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return format is defined elsewhere), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, the key optional parameter, and the return type. It lacks details on error handling, but for a simple extraction tool this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the base_url parameter's purpose (resolving relative links), adding meaning beyond the schema. The html parameter is left implicit but obvious from context. This adds value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts all hyperlinks from HTML, using a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('hyperlinks from HTML'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like html_html_headings, html_html_meta, etc., which extract other elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use base_url to resolve relative links, giving context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the burden. It explains path syntax, wildcard behavior returning a list, and the return type as a JSON string. However, it does not disclose error handling on invalid JSON or paths.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with examples, no filler. Front-loaded with the purpose, then examples, then return type. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers path usage, return format, and wildcard. Lacks explicit statement about data being a valid JSON string, but that is inferred.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'path' parameter with examples and mentions wildcard usage. It does not explicitly describe the 'data' parameter as a JSON string, but the schema type 'string' is clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool extracts a value from JSON using dot-notation path, with specific examples. It differentiates from siblings like json_json_filter and json_json_set, 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by providing examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like json_json_filter for complex queries or json_json_get for simple extraction. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description discloses the return of a timer_id string and concurrent timer behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, default behavior, or impact on system resources, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence provides essential information without waste, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the return value and concurrency behavior, fitting the tool's simplicity. It lacks mention of missing required parameter handling or interaction with metrics storage, but for a basic timer start, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The name parameter is only typed as a string in the schema with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining its role in identifying the timer for stopping and allowing concurrency, which compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a timer for measuring elapsed time and returns a timer_id. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling metric_timer_stop by indicating the timer_id should be passed to stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that multiple timers with the same name can run concurrently, providing context on concurrency. It implicitly directs usage toward pairing with metric_timer_stop, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with other timer tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It mentions escaping special regex characters but does not specify which characters are considered special or any edge cases (e.g., empty string). Adequate but could be more detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the [regex] tag. Every word is necessary and no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple escape function with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential use case and purpose. Could mention that it returns the escaped string, but that is likely clear from schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'text' is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the operation on the input string. For a single parameter, this is good additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (escape), the resource (special regex characters in a string), and the purpose (match literally). Distinguishes from sibling tools like regex_match or regex_search by specifying the escaping operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when building patterns from user-supplied text', providing clear context for when to use. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (create/update) and the parameter constraint, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwrite on same task_id), required permissions, or idempotency. Adequate but not thorough 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with a namespace prefix, directly stating purpose and critical constraint. No filler; every word earns its place. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential functionality and constraint. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, it omits context like the role of 'prompt' (the task to execute) and the format/validity of 'task_id'. Still, it is fairly complete for a scheduling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant semantic value by explaining the roles of 'interval_minutes' (recurring) and 'run_at' (one-shot) and their mutual exclusivity. However, 'task_id' and 'prompt' are not explained beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create or update a scheduled task', specifies the distinct parameters (interval_minutes vs run_at), and differentiates from sibling scheduler tools which handle cancellation, listing, clearing, and running. The verb 'create/update' plus resource 'scheduled task' is precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides a critical usage rule: 'Provide either interval_minutes (recurring) or run_at (one-shot ISO datetime), but not both.' However, it does not mention alternatives for other scheduling actions (e.g., cancel, list) or when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes the behavioral outcomes of each method (range or mean/std), which is valuable given no annotations. It lacks warnings about edge cases (e.g., empty array, constant values for zscore) but is sufficient for typical use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with front-loaded purpose and method details. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple normalization tool, the description covers the essential behavior. Minor gaps: values type not specified, default method not stated. Presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds critical meaning to the method parameter by explaining both options. However, it does not clarify that values should be numeric or the default method when null, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool normalizes values and specifies two distinct methods (minmax and zscore) with their effects, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when normalization is needed but does not provide guidance on when to choose minmax vs zscore or contrast with other stats tools like correlation or histogram.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all config stores with key counts. Being a read-only list operation, it is transparent. Could mention if any permissions are required, but for a simple list, it's sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence with a clear prefix. It avoids any unnecessary words while conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly improved by hinting at the output format, but the output schema likely covers that. It adequately informs the agent about the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds full meaning beyond the schema. It specifies that the tool returns a list of stores with key counts, which is not evident from the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all named config stores along with key counts. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'named config stores', and distinguishes from siblings like config_config_list by focusing on stores with key counts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the purpose is clear, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like config_config_get or config_config_list. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites, but the context implies it's for an overview of all stores.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or security considerations. For a pure function like hashing, the description is adequate but does not add extra transparency beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey purpose, output, supported algorithms, and default. It is front-loaded with the key action and leaves no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple and the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what algorithms are supported, and the default behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lacks descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'data' is the string to hash and 'algorithm' is the hash algorithm with a list of supported values and a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool hashes a string using a specified algorithm and returns the hex digest. It lists supported algorithms and the default, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from other crypto tools like crypto_hmac_sign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use the tool (hashing a string) but does not explicitly warn against using it for HMAC or other related operations. The sibling tools include crypto_hmac_sign, so the user could infer this, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses that the tool generates a random UUID and returns a string. It accurately represents the tool's behavior as a pure generation function with no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is remarkably concise with two sentences that convey the core purpose, format, and example output. No extraneous words, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear output), the description completely covers its behavior. The example output string provides the expected format, and there is an output schema available for additional detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters, the description naturally adds no parameter information beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Generate a random UUID (version 4)' with a specific verb and resource, and provides an example return string. It distinguishes itself from siblings like crypto_generate_token or crypto_random_bytes by focusing on UUID generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear (UUID generation), there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be preferred in other contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 states 'List all tables', which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. While sufficient, it could explicitly mention no side effects or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using only a few words to convey the tool's purpose. Every part is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: it lists all tables in the database. No additional context is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is assigned since the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List all tables in the database', providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling database tools like database_db_execute and database_db_schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like database_db_schema or database_db_query. Usage is implied but not clarified with exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it returns a sorted list, which is a helpful detail, but doesn't mention potential issues like pagination or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that packs essential information: purpose, return format, and ordering. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and a clear output schema (implied). The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the order. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly doesn't introduce unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (all metric names and types), return format (array of objects with name and type), and sorting (by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like metrics_metric_get (single metric) and modifying tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use it (listing all metrics) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, given its simplicity, the implied usage is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description clearly explains the reset operation: it resets to zero/empty, resets all metrics if no name given, and returns count. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then conditional behavior and return. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return value. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior when name is not provided (resets all metrics). Schema coverage is 0%, so this clarification is crucial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Reset a metric to its initial state (zero/empty)' and distinguishes the action from other metrics operations like get, increment, etc. It specifies the conditional behavior for when a name is provided vs not, and mentions the return value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for resetting metrics and clarifies the optional name parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return format {valid: bool, actual_type: str, expected_type: str} and lists supported types. No side effects, auth, or rate limits mentioned, but adequate for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives return format and supported types. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple with 2 params and an output schema. Description covers purpose, return structure, and allowed types. No gaps for a type-check validation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 required string params with 0% description coverage. Description adds value by listing supported types for expected_type (string, int, float, number, bool, list, dict, null), compensating for schema's lack of enums.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Check that a value is of the expected type' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists return format and supported types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validator_validate_email, validator_validate_pattern, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for type checking but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not to use or mention of other validators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 states the return format ({workflows, count}), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or disclose any potential performance implications for large datasets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus the return type. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, standard list operation), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and no additional semantic information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists all registered workflows, with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'all registered workflows'. It distinguishes from siblings like workflow_workflow_get (which presumably gets a specific workflow) and workflow_workflow_define (which creates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_workflow_get or workflow_workflow_status. While sibling tool names imply different purposes, no when-not or context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that sensitive variables are excluded from output and that the result is a JSON object. For a simple read-only operation, this is sufficient, though it omits mention of potential cost or latency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an illustrative example. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers key aspects: listing, filtering, and sensitive variable exclusion. It does not detail the output JSON structure, but the presence of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need. Sibling context helps distinguish usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the prefix parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining it filters results (e.g., 'AWS_'), which goes beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the tool lists environment variables as a JSON object with optional prefix filtering, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like env_env_get (gets a single variable) or env_env_check (checks existence). The inclusion of sensitive variable exclusion adds further specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions passing a prefix to filter, giving an example. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context of listing vs. retrieving single variables is clear. Could be improved with explicit when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that it performs random sampling, supports oversampling with replacement, and returns a structured object. It does not cover edge cases like empty lists or error handling, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and add critical details (replacement, return format). No verbose or unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (implied from description), the explanation is adequate. It lacks guidance on edge cases and alternative tools among siblings, but covers the essential contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains items, n, and replacement (oversampling). It omits the seed parameter, which is optional. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a random sample of n items from a list, with explicit mention of oversampling via replacement. The name 'sampler_sample_list' and prefix 'sampler' distinguish it from siblings like sampler_random_choice (single item) or sampler_random_split (partition).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage hint for replacement (oversampling) but does not explicitly contrast with other sampling tools. However, the purpose is straightforward, and the sibling tools' names imply their specialized uses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that one-shot tasks are removed and recurring tasks are rescheduled. However, does not mention side effects like triggering actions or return format. No annotations, so description carries full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with domain tag. All information is valuable and front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core purpose and behavioral differences for task types. Missing details like what happens if no tasks due or prerequisites, but output schema may cover return value. Good for a zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it checks for due tasks and returns them, with specific behavior for recurring vs one-shot tasks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scheduler_cancel_task and scheduler_list_scheduled.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for running pending tasks, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It is clear enough given sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts without side effects and returns a structured output. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., malformed HTML) but is adequate for a simple extraction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first specifies action and output, second adds use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple extraction tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'html' parameter is named descriptively. The description adds context by linking it to extraction of title and meta tags, compensating for the lack of parameter description in the schema (0% coverage).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it extracts <title> and <meta> tags from HTML, specifies the return format as a dictionary with title and meta list, and differentiates from sibling HTML extraction tools like html_html_headings and html_html_links.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage context by mentioning usefulness for Open Graph tags, descriptions, and keywords, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent-friend MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0-co/agent-friend/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0-co/agent-friend)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![agent-friend MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0-co/agent-friend/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/0-co/agent-friend)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0-co/agent-friend'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server