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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs), usage context relative to siblings, or details about the return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable tool invocation.

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

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

The description mentions 'a specific RubyGem,' which aligns with the single parameter 'gem_name' in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage (the schema's parameter description is minimal), the description adds little beyond what's inferred from the parameter name. It doesn't clarify constraints like valid gem name formats or examples.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('owners of a specific RubyGem'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_owner_gems' (which appears to fetch gems owned by a user rather than owners of a gem), leaving room for potential confusion.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_rubygem_info' (which might include owner information) and 'get_owner_gems' (which has a related but inverse purpose), the lack of comparative 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but doesn't add context like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter details, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand and use the tool correctly.

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

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

The description mentions 'a specific RubyGem' but doesn't clarify the parameter 'gem_name' or address other parameters. With a parameter count of 5 and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving semantics unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get gems') and the resource ('that depend on a specific RubyGem'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rubygem_info' or 'search_rubygems' in terms of reverse dependency focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as when reverse dependencies are needed compared to general gem info or searches, and it doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameters, behavioral aspects, or return values, which are essential for effective tool use.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'a specific RubyGem', which hints at the 'gem_name' parameter, but it does not cover other parameters (context signals indicate 5 parameters total) or add meaningful details like usage examples or constraints beyond what is implied.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all available versions of a specific RubyGem', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rubygem_info' or 'search_rubygems', which might also involve gem version information, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_rubygem_info' or 'search_rubygems'. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data ('Get all RubyGems'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., completeness or limitations). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, 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.

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter details, return values, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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

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

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'owner_name' implicitly ('specific user or organization'). It doesn't explain the other 4 parameters, their purposes, or how they interact. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all RubyGems owned by a specific user or organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('RubyGems'), and scope ('owned by a specific user or organization'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gem_owners' or 'search_rubygems,' which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_rubygems' for broader searches or 'get_gem_owners' for related queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the source ('RubyGems.org API') but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and data source, making it optimally concise for its content.

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

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

Given the complexity of an API tool with no annotations, no output schema, and potential parameter discrepancies (5 indicated vs. 1 in schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent under-informed for reliable use.

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

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

Context signals indicate 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, but the input schema shows only 1 parameter (rubygem_name) with a description. This discrepancy suggests missing parameters. The description mentions 'RubyGem' but adds no semantic context beyond the schema's parameter description, failing to compensate for the apparent coverage gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and target resource ('about a RubyGem from the RubyGems.org API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_gem_versions or get_gem_reverse_dependencies, which also fetch gem-related information but with different scopes.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what specific information is returned (e.g., metadata, dependencies, downloads) or how it differs from siblings like search_rubygems or get_gem_versions, 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.

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 effectively describes key behaviors: the search scope (gem names and descriptions), result ordering (by relevance), default limit (10 results), and customizability. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context for a search tool.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining search behavior, and providing examples. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids any redundant or unnecessary information.

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

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

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, how it behaves, and parameter usage. It could be more complete by mentioning the format of returned results or error handling, but it gives the agent enough information to use the tool effectively in most scenarios.

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

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

The description adds meaningful context about parameters beyond what the schema provides. While the schema has 0% description coverage and 5 parameters (though only 2 are shown in the provided schema), the description explains the 'limit' parameter's default value and purpose, and provides example queries that illustrate how the 'query' parameter should be used. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search for RubyGems'), the target resource ('RubyGems'), and the matching criteria ('against gem names and descriptions'). It distinguishes this search tool from sibling tools that retrieve specific gem information, owners, or dependencies rather than performing searches.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Search for RubyGems matching a query string') and includes example queries that illustrate appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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