Binalyze AIR MCP Server

Official

by binalyze

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap and potential confusion. For example, 'cancel_task_assignment' and 'cancel_task_by_id' both cancel tasks but target different IDs, and 'get_task_assignments' vs 'get_task_assignments_by_id' are similarly named but serve different functions. The descriptions help clarify, but the sheer number of tools increases the risk of misselection due to subtle distinctions.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tool names generally follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'create_case', 'update_organization_by_id', 'list_assets'), with clear actions and objects. There are minor deviations, such as 'call_webhook' vs 'post_webhook' (both involve webhooks but use different verbs) and some tools include 'by_id' while others do not, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 116 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, even given the broad scope of endpoint management and forensics. This large number suggests over-fragmentation, such as having separate tools for similar operations (e.g., multiple task assignment and cancellation tools) and many list/get pairs, which could overwhelm agents and lead to inefficiency in tool selection.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the domain of endpoint management, forensics, and case handling. It includes full CRUD operations for cases, organizations, policies, repositories, and more, along with task management, evidence acquisition, tagging, and validation tools. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform end-to-end workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 116 of 116 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
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

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. 'Create a new triage rule' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., if it triggers scans). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are critical for a creation tool with no 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 with a single sentence, 'Create a new triage rule', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it's under-specified in content, it earns full marks for brevity and structure, as every word directly states the tool's action without 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 tool's complexity (a creation operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a triage rule is, how it's used, or what to expect upon creation. With no behavioral context and reliance solely on the schema for parameters, it falls short of providing a holistic understanding for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'description' as a name, 'rule' as YARA content). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema carries the burden of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new triage rule' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. While it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify what a triage rule is, what it does, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_triage_tag' or 'validate_triage_rule' in the sibling list. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks distinguishing details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a case or policy), or exclusions (e.g., when not to create a rule). With siblings like 'create_triage_tag', 'validate_triage_rule', and 'update_triage_rule', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 mentions 'compare' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output might look like (e.g., a report or summary), whether it has side effects, or any permissions/rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the output or comparison scope.
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 implied by 'compare' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison yields (e.g., differences, a report, status), how results are returned, or any prerequisites (e.g., tasks must be completed). For a tool that likely involves analysis of multiple tasks, this leaves too much undefined for reliable 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (endpointId and taskIds). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format constraints, valid ranges, or relationships between parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 'Compare baseline acquisition tasks for a specific endpoint' clearly states the action (compare) and target (baseline acquisition tasks), but it's somewhat vague about what 'compare' entails—does it produce a report, highlight differences, or something else? It distinguishes from obvious non-siblings like 'create_case' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from closer tools like 'get_comparison_report' or 'acquire_baseline', leaving room for 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'acquire_baseline' (likely for creating baselines) and 'get_comparison_report' (possibly for retrieving comparisons), there's clear potential for overlap, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Validate' suggests a read-only check, but the description doesn't confirm this or disclose any behavioral traits like whether it performs actual connectivity tests, returns detailed error messages, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. It mentions configuration validation but provides no details about what that entails.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no unnecessary elaboration or repetition. However, it could be slightly more specific without losing conciseness (e.g., 'Validate connectivity and permissions for an Amazon S3 repository configuration').
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 validation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what validation checks are performed, what the output looks like (success/failure indicators), or how results should be interpreted. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively beyond passing parameters.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any contextual insights about parameter relationships or validation logic.
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 'Validate Amazon S3 repository configuration' clearly states the action (validate) and target (Amazon S3 repository configuration), but it's somewhat vague about what validation entails. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_amazon_s3_repository' and 'update_amazon_s3_repository' by focusing on validation rather than creation/modification, but doesn't specify what aspects are validated.
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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., use before creating/updating a repository), typical workflows, or what happens after validation. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'assign' implies a write operation, the description doesn't reveal whether this creates a new task, queues it for execution, requires specific permissions, has side effects on endpoints, or provides any confirmation/response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after assignment, what a 'version update task' actually does, potential impacts on endpoints, or expected response format. The context signals indicate this tool likely modifies system state, yet the description provides minimal operational 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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.
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 the action ('assign') and resource ('version update task to specific endpoints'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'version update task' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like assign_acquisition_task, assign_image_acquisition_task, assign_isolation_task, assign_log_retrieval_task, assign_reboot_task, assign_shutdown_task, or assign_triage_task.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for assigning version update tasks versus other assignment tools. With multiple 'assign_*_task' siblings, this omission is significant.
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 but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention authentication needs (though token param implies it), rate limits, side effects, or response handling, leaving critical operational details unspecified.
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 with zero waste—it states the tool's core function without fluff. It's 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves external calls (implying side effects like network requests), the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what happens on success/failure, return values, or error handling, leaving gaps for effective 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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (slug, data, token). The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying parameters are 'specified', which doesn't enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Call a webhook with the specified parameters' states the action (call) and resource (webhook), but it's vague about what 'call' entails (e.g., trigger, invoke, send request). It doesn't distinguish from sibling 'post_webhook', which appears similar, leaving ambiguity in purpose differentiation.
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 'post_webhook' or other webhook-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering no help for selection among 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new organization' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what the response contains, error conditions, or system impacts. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in 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 maximally concise at just three words. Every word earns its place - 'Create' specifies the action, 'new' clarifies it's not an update, and 'organization' identifies the resource. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly front-loaded and 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what an organization represents in this system, what permissions are required, what happens after creation, or what the response contains. The 100% schema coverage helps with inputs, but the overall context for using this mutation tool is inadequate given the complexity of creating organizational entities.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters and their nested structures. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 'Create a new organization' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('organization'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_case' or 'create_policy' beyond the resource type, and doesn't specify what constitutes an 'organization' in this context. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what an organization represents in this system.
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's no mention of prerequisites (like permissions needed), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens after creation. With sibling tools like 'check_organization_name_exists' and 'update_organization_by_id', some contextual guidance would be helpful but is completely absent.
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 states 'Export' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it generates files or returns data directly, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data extraction.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 an export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'cases data' includes, the export format (e.g., CSV, JSON), whether it's a bulk operation, or how results are delivered. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of structured metadata, more detail 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'organizationIds' documented as filtering cases by organization IDs. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 'Export cases data from the system' clearly states the action (export) and resource (cases data), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling export tools like 'export_audit_logs', 'export_case_activities', 'export_case_endpoints', or 'export_case_notes', leaving ambiguity about what specific data this exports.
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 export tools or data retrieval methods. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific use cases, offering only a basic statement of function without contextual direction.
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. 'Import' implies a write operation that likely modifies data, but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing assignments), or error handling. It misses details like whether it's idempotent or if it affects case status, leaving significant gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Import task assignments to a specific case'—front-loading the core action and target. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while clearly stating the 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 complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'import' does behaviorally, potential outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that likely alters data, more context on effects and usage is needed to be fully helpful.
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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions: 'caseId' as the target case ID and 'taskAssignmentIds' as an array of IDs to import. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra value from the description.
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 'Import task assignments to a specific case' clearly states the action (import) and target (task assignments to a case), but it's somewhat vague about what 'import' entails—does it copy, link, or reassign? It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'assign_triage_task' or 'remove_task_assignment_from_case', which involve task assignments but with 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'assign_triage_task' or 'remove_task_assignment_from_case' suggest other ways to handle task assignments, but the description doesn't clarify if this is for bulk operations, specific contexts, or prerequisites. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
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. 'Post data to a webhook' implies an HTTP POST request but doesn't specify expected behavior such as authentication requirements (though the token parameter hints at this), error handling, response formats, or rate limits. For a tool that likely involves external communication, this lack of detail is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?
Given the complexity of a webhook tool (likely involving external HTTP calls), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral traits, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description doesn't compensate by detailing success/error responses, making it inadequate for informed 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'slug', 'data', and 'token'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of data formats or token usage. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.
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 'Post data to a webhook' clearly states the verb ('Post') and resource ('webhook'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of webhook (e.g., external service integration) and doesn't distinguish it from the sibling tool 'call_webhook', which suggests similar functionality. This vagueness prevents a higher score.
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 'call_webhook' or other data-sending methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Without any context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.
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 but only states what the tool does ('assign a task'), not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what permissions are required, what happens if endpoints are offline, or what the expected outcome is. For a task assignment tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though it could potentially benefit from a bit more context given the complexity of the task assignment.
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 task assignment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'baseline acquisition' entails, what the expected output or task status would be, or how to verify task completion. The combination of mutation behavior (assigning tasks) with zero structured metadata requires more descriptive context than provided.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (caseId and filter object). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('assign a baseline acquisition task') and target ('to specific endpoints'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'assign_acquisition_task' or 'assign_triage_task', which have similar assignment patterns but different task types.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'assign_acquisition_task' (which might be a more general version) or 'compare_baseline' (which might analyze results).
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. While 'Add a note' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address permission requirements, whether notes are editable/deletable after creation, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states 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.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after note addition, potential side effects, error conditions, or how this differs from similar operations. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial tool that requires more 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 100%, with both parameters (caseId and note) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic information beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Add a note') and target resource ('to a specific case by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note_in_case' or 'delete_note_from_case', which would require explicit distinction for 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.
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 'update_note_in_case' or 'export_case_notes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for this operation.
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. 'Add tags' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether tags are case-sensitive, if duplicates are ignored or cause errors, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, idempotency, or response format. Given the complexity of modifying organizational data and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (id and tags). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as tag format constraints or ID validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need 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 'Add tags to an organization' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (tags to an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_tags_from_organization' and 'add_tags_to_assets' by specifying the resource type (organization vs. assets). However, it doesn't specify whether this adds new tags or merges with existing ones, keeping it from 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.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., organization must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot add duplicate tags), or when to choose sibling tools like 'delete_tags_from_organization' or 'update_organization_by_id' for tag management. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 states the action ('assign') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how the task is executed, or what the expected outcome is. This is inadequate for a tool with 10 parameters and no 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'evidence acquisition task' entails, how endpoints are affected, what the tool returns, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation via the schema alone.
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 ('assign') and the target ('evidence acquisition task to specific endpoints'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assign_triage_task' or 'assign_log_retrieval_task' by specifying the type of task, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'assign_image_acquisition_task' or 'acquire_baseline'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'assign' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., imaging might affect system state), rate limits, or what happens after assignment (e.g., task status, notifications). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential system impact.
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 core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations (e.g., what is returned after assignment). For a tool that likely involves system operations and multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'enableEncryption' interacts with 'encryptionPassword') or providing examples. Baseline is 3 as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Assign') and target ('disk image acquisition task to specific endpoints and volumes'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'assign_acquisition_task' or 'acquire_baseline', which appear related but have different scopes or 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'assign_acquisition_task' and 'acquire_baseline' present, the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent to infer 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 provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'assign' and 'isolation task' but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how the task executes, or what the expected outcome is. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies endpoint states.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and expected results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'endpointIds' are involved, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('assign') and resource ('isolation task to specific endpoints'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'assign_triage_task' or 'assign_shutdown_task' that also assign tasks to endpoints, leaving some ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., security incidents), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'assign' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe what happens after assignment, whether this creates a background task, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. The description is minimal and lacks 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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any 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?
For a tool that appears to create/mutate something (assigning tasks), with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'log retrieval task' entails, what gets returned, whether this is synchronous or asynchronous, or what the user should expect after invocation. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter 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 action ('assign') and resource ('log retrieval task to specific endpoints'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'assign_acquisition_task' or 'assign_triage_task' by specifying 'log retrieval', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all assignment tools in the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or what happens after assignment. It simply states what the tool does without context about when it's 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Assign a reboot task' implies a write/mutation operation that will cause endpoints to reboot, but the description doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if the reboot is immediate or scheduled, what confirmation/response to expect, or potential impacts on endpoint availability. For a potentially disruptive operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 that performs a potentially disruptive operation (rebooting endpoints) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after assignment, what the agent should expect as a response, or any safety considerations. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (endpointIds, organizationIds, managedStatus) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.
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 ('assign a reboot task') and target ('to specific endpoints'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like assign_shutdown_task, assign_isolation_task, or assign_version_update_task, which all follow the same 'assign [type] task' pattern.
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's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with similar tools like assign_shutdown_task. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Assign a shutdown task' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't clarify what 'shutdown' entails (graceful shutdown, forced power-off, etc.), whether the task is immediate or scheduled, what permissions are required, or what happens to endpoints during/after shutdown. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'shutdown task' entails, what the expected outcome is, whether there are confirmation steps, error conditions, or any behavioral context needed for safe usage. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra 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 the action ('assign a shutdown task') and target ('to specific endpoints'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like assign_reboot_task or assign_isolation_task, 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.
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. With multiple 'assign_*_task' siblings in the server (assign_reboot_task, assign_isolation_task, assign_triage_task, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes a shutdown task from other task types or when each should be used.
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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether this is a mutation or read operation, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens upon assignment (e.g., task status changes). This is inadequate for a tool with complex parameters and 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (5 required parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filter usage, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 ('Assign') and resource ('a triage task to endpoints'), specifying it's based on filter criteria. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assign_acquisition_task' or 'assign_isolation_task' by mentioning 'triage' specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'assign_acquisition_task' or 'create_triage_rule'. The description implies usage for assigning triage tasks with filters, but lacks explicit 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'assign' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this is additive (appending users) or replacement, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., confirmation, updated organization details) or failure, nor does it cover side effects like user permissions changes. Given the complexity of user-organization assignments, 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'userIds'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('assign users') and the target resource ('to a specific organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_user_from_organization' or 'get_organization_users', which would require explicit comparison.
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 'create_organization' or 'update_organization_by_id', nor does it mention prerequisites such as existing users or organizations. It lacks any context about appropriate scenarios 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. While 'Cancel' implies a state change operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to associated resources, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the essential 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'cancel' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or how this differs from similar sibling operations. The context demands more complete behavioral disclosure.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'assignmentId' clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Cancel') and target resource ('a task assignment by its ID'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the similar 'cancel_task_by_id' sibling tool, which appears to cancel tasks rather than task assignments.
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. With sibling tools like 'cancel_task_by_id' and 'delete_task_assignment' available, there's no indication of when this specific cancellation operation is appropriate versus those other operations.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Cancel') but doesn't explain what cancellation entails (e.g., whether it's reversible, if it stops execution, permission requirements, or side effects). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'cancel' means operationally, what happens to the task, whether changes are permanent, or what the response looks like. More context is needed given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the task to cancel'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Cancel') and target ('a specific task by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_task_by_id' or 'cancel_task_assignment', which would require explicit differentiation to earn 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 like 'delete_task_by_id' or 'cancel_task_assignment'. The description states what it does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Change the owner' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the change is reversible, what happens to the previous owner's access, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely requires administrative privileges, this is inadequate.
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 zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and communicates the essential purpose immediately without any unnecessary elaboration.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the ownership change, whether there are side effects, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of ownership changes in case management systems, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and newOwnerId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 ('change') and resource ('owner of a case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'assign_users_to_organization' or 'update_case', but it's specific enough to understand the core 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'assign_users_to_organization', 'update_case', and 'get_case_users', there's no indication of when case ownership changes are appropriate versus other user assignment operations.
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 states the tool checks availability but does not describe what 'in use' means (e.g., across all cases, within an organization), the response format (e.g., boolean, detailed message), or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries a database.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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 output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs a check operation. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., availability status, error messages) or behavioral aspects like idempotency or error conditions. For a query tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to handle responses effectively.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as 'The case name to check for availability.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, length) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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: 'Check if a case name is already in use.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('case name'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_organization_name_exists', which performs a similar check for organization names, leaving room for minor confusion.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., before creating a case), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'check_organization_name_exists'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Close a case' implies a state-changing mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data/tasks, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero wasted content.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'closing' means operationally, whether there are side effects, what the expected response format is, or how this differs from similar operations like archiving. Given the context of case management with multiple state-changing tools, more contextual information 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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the case to close'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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 'Close a case by its ID' clearly states the action (close) and resource (case) with a specific mechanism (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling 'archive_case_by_id' by using 'close' rather than 'archive', suggesting different state transitions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate between these similar 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'archive_case_by_id' or 'update_case'. The description implies this is for closing cases specifically by ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., case must be open), consequences, or when to choose other case state management 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'create' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the profile is immediately active, if there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (7 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an acquisition profile is, its purpose in the system, expected return values, or error handling. For a creation tool with rich input requirements, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter 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 verb 'create' and the resource 'acquisition profile', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_case' or 'create_policy', which also create different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.
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. With siblings like 'list_acquisition_profiles' and 'get_acquisition_profile_by_id', there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for creating a profile.
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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention what permissions are needed, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., repository ID returned, error conditions), doesn't mention authentication requirements beyond the obvious access keys, and provides no behavioral context about this being a potentially sensitive operation.
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 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new Amazon S3 repository for evidence storage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_amazon_s3_repository' or other repository creation tools like 'create_azure_storage_repository', which would require 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_azure_storage_repository' or 'update_amazon_s3_repository'. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for creating an S3 repository versus other storage options.
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 but lacks behavioral details. It states the tool creates a rule but doesn't disclose whether this is a persistent configuration, requires specific permissions, has side effects on existing assets, or how the rule is triggered. For a creation 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 element ('Create a new rule', 'automatically tag assets', 'based on specified conditions', 'for Linux, Windows, and macOS') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 that creates configuration rules with 4 complex parameters (involving nested ConditionGroup objects) and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., rule activation, tagging behavior), error conditions, or relationship to other tools like 'list_auto_asset_tags'. With no annotations and rich parameter schema, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the rule applies to multiple OS types, which is already clear from the parameter names. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Create a new rule') and the resource ('automatically tag assets'), specifying the scope ('for Linux, Windows, and macOS'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_tags_to_assets' by focusing on rule-based automation rather than direct tagging, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_triage_rule' or 'update_auto_asset_tag'.
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 'add_tags_to_assets' (for manual tagging) or 'create_triage_rule' (for triage automation). The description implies usage for automated tagging based on conditions but offers no context on prerequisites, dependencies, 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 provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant or verbose elements.
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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, or what format the response takes. The context of repository management with multiple similar tools demands more comprehensive guidance.
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 no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract but adds no 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 the action ('Create') and resource ('new Azure Storage repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling repository creation tools (like create_amazon_s3_repository), but the specific resource type provides adequate clarity for basic understanding.
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. With sibling tools for creating different repository types (Amazon S3, FTPS, SFTP, SMB) and an update_azure_storage_repository tool, there's no indication of selection criteria, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts for this specific Azure Storage option.
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. 'Create a new case' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic creation 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.
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 no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'case' represents in this system, what happens after creation, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool effectively despite the comprehensive parameter 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'Create a new case in the system' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_organization' or 'create_policy' beyond the resource name, 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.
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's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_organization' or 'update_case'. 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.
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 states 'Create' but doesn't clarify if this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
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 creating an FTPS repository with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves network configuration and authentication, more context is needed to guide effective 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying FTPS-related inputs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or clarify parameter usage further.
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 'Create' and the resource 'new FTPS evidence repository', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_amazon_s3_repository' or 'create_sftp_repository' beyond the protocol type, missing explicit distinction in functionality or use cases.
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 other repository creation tools (e.g., 'create_sftp_repository') or related tools (e.g., 'validate_ftps_repository'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing FTPS server access, or when this is appropriate over other storage options.
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 but only states it 'creates a new policy' without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, what happens on conflict (e.g., duplicate names), if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, this is inadequate.
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 core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key settings involved.
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 creation tool with 6 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the policy's purpose in the system, what 'evidence' refers to, how policies are used, or what happens after creation. The agent lacks context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter filling.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'storage and compression settings', which loosely maps to 'saveTo' and 'compression' parameters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Create' and the resource 'policy', specifying it's for 'storage and compression settings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_policy' or 'delete_policy_by_id' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_case' or 'create_organization' in terms of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when to choose this over other policy-related tools like 'update_policy' or 'get_policy_by_id'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether the repository becomes immediately active, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success/failure, what side effects occur, or what permissions are required. Given the complexity of creating a repository with authentication credentials, 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters including name, host, port, path, username, password, and organizationIds. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Create' and the resource 'SFTP evidence repository', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_amazon_s3_repository' by specifying SFTP, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_ftps_repository' beyond the protocol 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other repository creation tools (e.g., create_ftps_repository, create_amazon_s3_repository), nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or system configuration.
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 for behavioral disclosure but only states the creation action. It doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with authentication parameters, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 that creates a repository with authentication credentials and organizational associations, the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral context, it leaves critical questions unanswered about permissions, response format, error conditions, and how this differs from other repository types.
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 no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters, format requirements beyond the schema's examples, or how organizationIds affect repository access. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Create') and resource ('new SMB evidence repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling repository creation tools like 'create_amazon_s3_repository' or 'create_azure_storage_repository' beyond specifying SMB type.
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, prerequisites, or constraints. It doesn't mention when this should be used instead of other repository types or what organizational context might be required.
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 states 'Create' implies a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions required, side effects (e.g., if tags are unique), error conditions, or response format. The description lacks details on what 'new' entails, such as whether duplicates are allowed or how the tag integrates with triage rules.
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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying 'new' and 'triage rule tag' to clarify scope.
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 as a creation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'triage rule tag' is, how it's used, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool in a context with many siblings, more detail is needed to guide effective 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'organizationId'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., tag naming conventions). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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 'Create a new triage rule tag' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('triage rule tag'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_triage_rule' by specifying 'tag' rather than 'rule', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the tool 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_auto_asset_tag' or 'list_triage_tags'. Usage is implied only through the action 'Create', with no contextual framing.
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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's a deletion operation (implying destructive), but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what happens to associated assets. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive 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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple 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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (permanent? soft delete?), what happens on success/failure, or return values. Given the tool's potential impact and lack of structured metadata, 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?
The description mentions the 'id' parameter ('by its ID'), but the input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single parameter. This adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('a specific auto asset tag rule by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_organization' or 'delete_policy_by_id' beyond specifying the resource type, 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.
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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the ID from 'get_auto_asset_tag_by_id' or 'list_auto_asset_tags'), consequences, or when not to use it (e.g., if the tag is in 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 states it's a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., on case history), or error handling. For a destructive 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste: 'Delete a note from a case by its ID'. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes (e.g., confirmation of deletion, error responses), prerequisites, or impact. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in a case management context, more context is needed to guide safe and correct 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (caseId and noteId). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, relationships between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.
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 resource ('a note from a case'), specifying it's done 'by its ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_note_in_case' by focusing on deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_organization'), though the resource specificity helps.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing case and note IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletions), or direct alternatives like 'update_note_in_case' for modifications. The description assumes context but offers no explicit usage rules.
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 but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has rate limits. For a destructive operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context such as irreversible effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of deleting an organization, more completeness 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID identifies the organization to delete, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 target ('an organization by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_auto_asset_tag_by_id' or 'delete_policy_by_id' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the organization must be empty), consequences, or related tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'create_organization' for comparison.
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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't disclose whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated resources, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails operationally, what gets returned (if anything), or error conditions. The context demands more behavioral disclosure than provided.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 resource ('a specific policy by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_organization' or 'delete_triage_rule', but the specificity of 'policy' provides adequate distinction.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a valid policy ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other deletion tools in the sibling 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated data, or has confirmation prompts, leaving significant gaps 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., irreversibility, side effects), success/error responses, and usage context, which are critical for safe and correct invocation by an AI agent.
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 100%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID refers to a repository, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 resource ('an evidence repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_organization' or 'delete_policy_by_id' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist, no active dependencies), exclusions, or comparisons to similar deletion tools in the sibling 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes tags, implying a mutation, but does not address critical aspects like whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects other data, or what happens if tags don't exist. This leaves significant gaps 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which 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's destructive nature (deleting tags), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral risks, permissions, or response details to provide adequate context for safe and effective use, especially compared to sibling tools in a management system.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'tags') with their purposes. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 'Delete specific tags from an organization' clearly states the action (delete) and target (tags from an organization), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_tags_from_assets' or 'add_tags_to_organization', which would require mentioning the scope (organization vs. assets) or contrasting with addition 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing organization with tags, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'remove_tags_from_assets' for different resources or 'add_tags_to_organization' for opposite operations.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and wastes no 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, auth needs), usage context relative to siblings, or what happens upon success/failure. Given the complexity of deletion operations in this toolset, 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?
The description mentions deleting 'by its ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'assignmentId' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter is fully documented in the schema), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already structured. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 resource ('a specific task assignment by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_task_by_id' or 'remove_task_assignment_from_case', which appear to handle similar deletion operations but for different resources or contexts.
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. With sibling tools like 'delete_task_by_id', 'cancel_task_assignment', and 'remove_task_assignment_from_case', there's no indication of which tool to choose for deleting task assignments, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of deletion in a task management context, more context is needed for safe and effective 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?
The description mentions 'by its ID', aligning with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter is fully documented as 'The ID of the task to delete'), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 target ('a specific task by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cancel_task_by_id' by specifying deletion rather than cancellation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion-related tools like 'delete_task_assignment'.
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 'cancel_task_by_id' or 'delete_task_assignment'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., task state), exclusions, or typical scenarios for deletion, 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.
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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data (e.g., if the rule is linked to cases or policies). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of deletion operations in this domain (with siblings like 'delete_organization' and 'delete_policy_by_id'), more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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 mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema fully documents the parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond restating what's already in the structured data. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide additional context like ID format or sourcing.
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 existing triage rule by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_triage_rule' and 'update_triage_rule' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'triage rule' is in this context, which slightly limits 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID from 'get_triage_rule_by_id' or 'list_triage_rules'), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the rule is active). With many sibling tools, this lack of contextual guidance 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it downloads to local storage or returns a stream, file size considerations, or error conditions. 'Download' implies data transfer but lacks 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?
Single sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
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 download operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the PPC file is in, whether it's returned as data or saved locally, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool effectively.
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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'endpoint and task' but doesn't provide additional context about what constitutes valid IDs or their relationship. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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 ('Download') and resource ('a PPC file') with specific targeting ('for a specific endpoint and task'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_task_report' by specifying the file type (PPC), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other download tools in the 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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or what distinguishes this from other download operations like 'download_task_report' or export functions. Usage context is implied but not articulated.
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 states the action is 'Download,' implying a read operation that retrieves data, but does not specify output format (e.g., file type, structure), potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action, making it easy to parse, though 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.
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 output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a file or report. It does not address what is downloaded (e.g., file format, content type) or how to handle the output, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper invocation and result interpretation.
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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('endpointId' and 'taskId') with their purposes. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 the action ('Download') and the target ('a task report for a specific endpoint and task'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report_file_info' or 'export_case_activities', which might also involve retrieving reports or data, 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.
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 download or export tools in the sibling list. It mentions the required parameters but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
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 but only states the initiation action. It doesn't disclose whether this is asynchronous, where results are delivered, what format the export uses, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a one-time or recurring operation. For a tool that presumably creates data exports, this is insufficient 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point.
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 that initiates data exports with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after initiation, where to find results, what format they're in, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of export operations and lack of structured information, 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Initiate an export') and resource ('audit logs from the AIR system'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_audit_logs' or 'export_case_activities', which would be needed for 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.
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 'list_audit_logs' or other export tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or what makes this tool distinct from similar operations.
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 states the tool exports activities but doesn't specify output format (e.g., CSV, JSON), file handling, permissions required, or any side effects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and target. It efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'export' entails (e.g., file download, data format), potential errors, or dependencies, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
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 100% description coverage, with 'caseId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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') and target ('activities for a specific case by its ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_case_notes' or 'export_cases', which share similar export patterns but target different 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention how it differs from 'get_case_activities' (which might retrieve activities without exporting) or other export tools like 'export_case_notes', leaving the agent to infer usage from context 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 carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what format the export is in, if it's asynchronous, or any permissions required. For a tool with 'export' in the name and no annotations, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an export operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'endpoints' are, what the export produces, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely generates output data, this leaves too many questions unanswered.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('caseId' and 'organizationIds') adequately. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'endpoints' are or how 'organizationIds' filtering works, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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') and the resource ('endpoints for a specific case'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_case_activities' or 'export_cases', which would require specifying what 'endpoints' means 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 like 'get_case_endpoints' or other export tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar operations.
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 mentions 'Export' but doesn't clarify what format the export is in (e.g., file download, JSON data), whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are any side effects like rate limits. This leaves 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'export' entails (e.g., file format, data structure), potential errors, or how results are returned, leaving the agent with critical unknowns for proper invocation.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'caseId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the caseId is needed, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra 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 the action ('Export') and resource ('notes for a specific case'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'export_case_activities' or 'export_cases', but the specificity is adequate for basic 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 like 'export_case_activities' or 'get_case_by_id'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about its 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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 output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' entail, the return format, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool in a context with many sibling alternatives, more context is needed to guide proper 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 adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'by its ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already documents.
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 ('Get') and resource ('tasks associated with a specific asset'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_case_tasks_by_id' or 'list_tasks', which reduces clarity about its unique 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_case_tasks_by_id' and 'list_tasks' available, the description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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 provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. The phrase 'Get details' suggests a safe read, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error responses), usage context, and what 'details' are returned, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying retrieval by ID, matching the baseline score when schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get details') and target resource ('specific auto asset tag rule'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_auto_asset_tags' or 'get_asset_by_id', which would require explicit comparison to 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.
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. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific rule by ID, but there's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or related tools like 'list_auto_asset_tags' for browsing or 'create_auto_asset_tag' for creation.
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get activity history' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'activity history' includes, whether there are permissions required, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information in minimal 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'activity history' entails, the format of returned data, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (many case/activity management functions), this description leaves significant gaps.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get activity history') and target resource ('for a specific case by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_case_activities' or 'list_audit_logs', which appear to serve related functions.
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's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus 'export_case_activities' or 'list_audit_logs', nor any prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this returns all case details or a subset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the key 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by many sibling tools and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about what this tool actually returns.
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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't clarify ID format, source, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific case'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_case_activities' or 'get_case_endpoints' that also retrieve case-related information, preventing 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.
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. With many sibling tools that retrieve case data (e.g., 'get_case_activities', 'get_case_endpoints', 'list_cases'), there's no indication of when this specific ID-based retrieval is appropriate versus other case access methods.
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 states the action ('Get all users') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'associated' means (e.g., roles, permissions). This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves data retrieval with potential access controls.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with potential filtering via 'organizationIds'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., user details, roles), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to handle.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'organizationIds') thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'id' parameter is for a case, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('users associated with a specific case'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_users' or 'list_users', which also retrieve user information but in different contexts.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid case ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_organization_users' or 'list_users', leaving the agent to infer usage from context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns structured data or files, includes pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place without 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report contains (e.g., comparison results, status, metrics), the return format (e.g., JSON, file), or error conditions. For a tool that retrieves a 'report', this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
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 100%, with both parameters ('endpointId' and 'taskId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that these IDs are for a comparison task. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('comparison result report'), specifying it's for a specific endpoint and task. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_baseline' (which likely initiates comparison) and 'download_task_report' (which might download files rather than retrieve report data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_task_by_id' or 'get_report_file_info', which could be related.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a completed comparison task), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_task_by_id' (which might return task status) or 'download_task_report' (which might retrieve files). Usage is implied only by the name and parameters.
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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or what format the detailed information takes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that presumably accesses organizational data.
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 immediately communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that retrieves organizational data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, whether the operation is idempotent, what error conditions might occur, or how this differs from other organization-related tools in the sibling list. The context signals suggest this is a simple tool, but the description leaves too many open questions.
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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the organization to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific organization by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'get_organization_users' or 'list_organizations', which would require more specific scope information.
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 'list_organizations' or 'get_organization_users'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, access requirements, or contextual constraints that would help an agent choose between these 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves information. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential error cases, or return structure, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively in context with many sibling tools.
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 minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single 'id' parameter. It implies the ID is used for retrieval but doesn't provide additional context like ID format or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific policy by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_policy_match_stats' or 'list_policies' beyond the ID specificity, 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.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_policies' for browsing or 'get_policy_match_stats' for different data, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid policy ID.
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 states it 'Get statistics' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., aggregated counts vs. detailed data), or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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 core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear language and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential 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's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what statistics are provided, format), behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke the tool beyond its basic function.
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 mentions 'based on filter criteria,' which aligns with the 16 parameters in the input schema, all of which have 100% schema description coverage. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, as the schema already details each filter parameter. Given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or usage examples for the 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 action ('Get statistics') and the resource ('endpoints match each policy'), specifying it's about statistical counts based on filter criteria. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assets' or 'get_case_endpoints', which might also involve endpoints but with different purposes, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its unique focus.
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 'list_assets' for raw endpoint lists or other statistical tools. It mentions 'based on filter criteria' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, offering minimal 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, if there are rate limits, or if it's a lightweight metadata query versus a heavy report generation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key context. There's no wasted verbiage.
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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output expectations. For a read operation in what appears to be a security/forensics context, more detail about what 'information' includes would be helpful.
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 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('endpointId' and 'taskId') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationship between endpoint and task. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get information') and the resource ('a PPC file for a specific endpoint and task'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'download_task_report' or 'get_comparison_report' that might also involve report files, missing full sibling differentiation.
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 are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to sibling tools like 'download_task_report' that might serve related purposes. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what format the information returns, whether it's paginated, or if there are rate limits. The description adds no context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get shareable deployment information') and specifies the required input mechanism. Every element earns its place without 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves information. It doesn't explain what 'shareable deployment information' includes (e.g., configuration details, status), the return format, or error conditions. For a read operation with undocumented outputs, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'deploymentToken' documented as 'The deployment token to retrieve information for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as token format or source. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('shareable deployment information') with the specific mechanism ('using a deployment token'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_organization_shareable_deployment' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that might retrieve deployment-related 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid deployment token), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_organization_by_id' or 'update_organization_shareable_deployment' that might relate to deployment information. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameter.
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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements (though the token parameter suggests it), rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format the assignments are returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'assignments' consist of, how they're structured, whether there are limitations on retrieval, or what authentication is required. The presence of a similar sibling tool ('get_task_assignments_by_id') further highlights the incompleteness without differentiation guidance.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with the taskId parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get all assignments') and the target resource ('for a specific task by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_task_assignments_by_id' which appears to serve a similar function, missing an opportunity for differentiation.
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. With a sibling tool named 'get_task_assignments_by_id' that likely serves a similar purpose, there's no indication of which tool to choose or under what circumstances. No prerequisites or exclusions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the assignments come in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'assignments' consist of, the return format, whether results are paginated, or any error conditions. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information about the operation.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'taskId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which specifies it's 'The ID of the task to retrieve assignments for'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Get all assignments') and resource ('associated with a specific task by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_assignments' (which appears to retrieve assignments without task filtering) or 'get_task_by_id' (which retrieves task details rather than assignments).
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_task_assignments' (which might retrieve assignments without task filtering) or 'get_task_by_id' (which retrieves task details), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific task by its ID'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it optimally concise for its 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., task status, metadata), potential side effects, or error responses. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective 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?
The description mentions retrieving by 'ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already documents the parameter as 'The ID of the task to retrieve'), the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which retrieves multiple tasks) by specifying retrieval by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*_by_id' tools (e.g., 'get_case_by_id'), which would require 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.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), contrast with 'list_tasks' for browsing, or specify error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive data.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, 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.
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 output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'triage rule' is in this context, what data is returned, or any prerequisites (e.g., permissions). For a tool that likely interacts with security/case management data, this leaves too much unspecified.
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 mentions retrieving by 'ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'id' in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema fully documents the parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already structured. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific triage rule by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_triage_rules' or 'get_triage_rule' (if present), which would be needed for 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.
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. With siblings like 'list_triage_rules' available, there's no indication that this tool is for retrieving a single known rule by ID rather than listing multiple rules.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., whether it includes archived profiles). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns multiple items.
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'acquisition profile' is, what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about the response format and operational characteristics.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List all') and resource ('acquisition profiles in the system'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_acquisition_profile_by_id' or 'list_acquisition_artifacts', 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.
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 'get_acquisition_profile_by_id' for single profiles or 'list_acquisition_artifacts' for related resources. There's 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all assets' entails (e.g., includes archived assets?). The description is too sparse for a tool with potential complexity.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format (e.g., list of objects, pagination), error conditions, or how 'all assets' interacts with the optional filter. Given the sibling tools include many asset-related operations, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'organizationIds'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a broad scope ('all assets'), which aligns with the parameter being optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('List') and resource ('assets'), specifying 'all assets in the system' which defines scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_asset_by_id' (specific asset) and 'list_cases' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list operations like 'list_organizations' or 'list_users'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities (beyond the optional parameter), or contrast with other asset-related tools like 'get_asset_by_id' or 'add_tags_to_assets'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema 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 carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. It mentions 'list' which implies retrieval, but lacks details on output format or constraints.
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 no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'list' returns (e.g., format, fields), behavioral aspects like limits, or how it differs from 'export_audit_logs', leaving gaps in understanding for effective 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'organizationIds' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('List') and resource ('audit logs from the AIR system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_audit_logs' or specify what 'list' entails versus 'export'.
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 'export_audit_logs' or how it fits with other audit-related operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparison 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about how this tool behaves beyond its basic 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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential 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?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each case, whether there are limitations (like maximum results), or how to handle the output. Given the tool's role in a case management system with many sibling tools, more context about the listing behavior 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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which explains the organizationIds filter and default behavior). This meets minimum requirements but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('List') and resource ('all cases in the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_case_by_id' or 'export_cases', but the scope ('all cases') is specific enough for basic differentiation.
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 'get_case_by_id' (for a single case) or 'export_cases' (for bulk export). It mentions filtering by organization IDs in the schema but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what 'default (0)' means in practice.
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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention potential side effects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' entails (e.g., includes archived rules?). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included), pagination behavior, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'update_triage_rule', more context is needed for effective 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'organizationIds' documented as filtering triage rules by organization IDs, defaulting to 0 if empty. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 the verb ('List') and resource ('all triage rules in the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_triage_rule_by_id' or 'create_triage_rule', which would require explicit scope comparison.
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 'get_triage_rule_by_id' for specific rules or 'create_triage_rule' for adding new ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing organization access, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all users') but fails to mention critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It achieves maximum clarity in minimal space, earning a high score for 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of users. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination, which are essential for effective use, especially in a system with many sibling tools.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents the single parameter 'organizationIds' with its description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('List') and resource ('users in the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_organizations' or 'get_organization_users' beyond the resource type, missing explicit scope or filtering distinctions.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as permissions needed, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_user_by_id' for specific users or 'get_organization_users' for filtered lists, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'purge data and uninstall' which implies destructive operations, but fails to describe critical behavioral aspects: what data gets purged, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens to filtered assets. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second highlights a key requirement. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'purge data' entails, what the consequences are, what gets returned, or how this differs from the simpler 'uninstall_assets' sibling. The combination of destructive nature and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description.
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 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing the 'includedEndpointIds' requirement, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('purge data and uninstall') and resource ('specific assets'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'uninstall_assets' which appears to be a simpler version without the purge component, missing an opportunity for clear sibling distinction.
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 minimal guidance by stating 'Requires specifying filter.includedEndpointIds', which is a parameter requirement rather than usage context. It offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'uninstall_assets' or other asset management tools, nor does it 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 carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens to removed endpoints (e.g., are they deleted or just unlinked?). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with potential impact.
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 core action without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating purpose and constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe invocation. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a case management system, but the description doesn't leverage that 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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'based on specified filters', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like filter logic (e.g., AND/OR) or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 target ('endpoints from a case'), specifying it's based on filters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_tags_from_assets' or 'remove_user_from_organization' by focusing on endpoints in cases, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'purge_and_uninstall_assets' which might also remove endpoints.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or compare it to siblings like 'uninstall_assets' or 'purge_and_uninstall_assets', leaving the agent to infer usage from context 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a removal action, implying mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, if it triggers side effects (e.g., notifications), or what the response looks like. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, side effects), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes. While the purpose is clear, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially given the tool's potential impact.
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 100%, with both parameters ('caseId' and 'taskAssignmentId') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 the target ('a specific task assignment from a case'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_task_assignment' or 'cancel_task_assignment', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_task_assignment' or 'cancel_task_assignment' from the sibling list. It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as whether the task assignment must be in a specific state or if there are permission requirements, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens to the user's data or access, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, whether there are confirmation steps, error conditions, or what the return value might be. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool effectively.
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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra 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 the action ('remove') and target ('user from an organization'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_organization' or 'remove_endpoints_from_case', which would require explicit scope clarification to earn 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or relationships to sibling tools like 'assign_users_to_organization' or 'delete_organization', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.
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 states the tool starts a process but doesn't explain what 'auto asset tagging' entails, whether it's a background task, its duration, permissions required, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely initiates a non-trivial 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.
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 (initiating a process with a detailed filter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the nature of 'auto asset tagging', what the process does, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single 'filter' parameter and its nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering is used to select assets, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Start the auto asset tagging process') and the target ('assets matching filter criteria'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_tags_to_assets' or 'create_auto_asset_tag', which appear to handle tagging in different ways, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'add_tags_to_assets' or 'create_auto_asset_tag', leaving the agent with no 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 provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'without purging data' which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to asset data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation like uninstalling assets, 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences add value: the first states what the tool does, the second emphasizes a key requirement. No wasted words, 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?
For a destructive operation like uninstalling assets with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'uninstall' means operationally, what the response looks like, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The context signals show complexity (nested objects, many filter options) that isn't addressed.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all filter properties thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing the 'includedEndpointIds' requirement, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's in 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 ('uninstall') and resource ('assets'), and specifies it's based on filters without purging data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'purge_and_uninstall_assets' tool, which appears to be a similar but more destructive 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 mentions 'without purging data' which hints at a less destructive alternative, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'purge_and_uninstall_assets' or other asset management tools. No clear guidance on prerequisites or alternatives 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies mutation but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and no 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on what the update entails or returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 ('Update') and target ('existing Amazon S3 repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_azure_storage_repository' or 'validate_amazon_s3_repository' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction.
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 'create_amazon_s3_repository' or 'delete_repository'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing an existing repository ID, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'auto asset tag rule' is, what fields can be updated, what the update operation returns, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the parameter schema (with nested condition objects), 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter meaning or usage.
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 ('Update') and resource ('auto asset tag rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_auto_asset_tag' or explain what distinguishes updating from creating an auto asset tag rule.
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 'create_auto_asset_tag' or 'delete_auto_asset_tag_by_id'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing auto asset tag ID, or contextual factors that would make this the appropriate choice over other 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an update operation but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, usage context, or result expectations, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to invoke and interpret 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 ('Update') and resource ('existing Azure Storage repository'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_amazon_s3_repository' or 'validate_azure_storage_repository', which would require specifying Azure Storage-specific aspects or contrasting with validation.
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 'create_azure_storage_repository' for new repositories or 'validate_azure_storage_repository' for checks. The description lacks context on prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for updates.
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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies system settings.
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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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 no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'system banner message' means, what values are valid, whether there are side effects, or what the response contains. The combination of mutation behavior and minimal description creates significant gaps.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'enabled'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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 ('update') and the resource ('system banner message settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_case' or 'update_organization_by_id', which follow similar naming patterns but target different resources.
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate scenarios or constraints.
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing case') and includes the key constraint ('by ID'), making it easy to parse quickly.
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 (mutation tool with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication needs, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'ID of the case to update', 'New name for the case'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding 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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing case by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'change_case_owner', 'update_note_in_case', or 'update_organization_by_id', which also update aspects of cases or related entities.
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. With sibling tools like 'change_case_owner' (specifically for ownership), 'update_note_in_case' (for notes), and 'close_case_by_id' (for status), there's no indication of when this general update tool is preferred over more specialized ones or what prerequisites might 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing data, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions. For a tool with 10 parameters and no 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space on redundant information, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.
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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, side effects, error handling, or what constitutes a successful update. The agent lacks crucial context needed to use this tool effectively and safely.
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 100%, with all 10 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing FTPS evidence repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_amazon_s3_repository' or 'update_sftp_repository' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction between different repository update 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_ftps_repository' or other repository update tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for updating versus creating an FTPS repository, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to the existing note content. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the update does (e.g., overwrites note content), potential side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of modifying data, more behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for caseId, noteId, and note parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing note in a specific case'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_note_to_case' or 'delete_note_from_case', which would require explicit comparison.
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 'add_note_to_case' or 'update_case', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing note ID. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether partial updates are allowed, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or important behavioral context needed for safe and effective 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
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 ('Update') and target ('an existing organization by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_organization_deployment_token' or 'update_organization_shareable_deployment', which are more specific updates.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare it to other organization-related tools like 'create_organization' or 'delete_organization'.
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is reversible, what happens to existing deployment tokens, potential security implications, or what the response looks like. For a sensitive operation like token updates, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with only two parameters and follows a clear subject-verb-object structure.
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 that updates sensitive deployment tokens with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address security implications, permission requirements, response format, or error conditions. Given the complexity of token management and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'deploymentToken') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 ('Update') and the resource ('deployment token for a specific organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'update_organization_shareable_deployment', but the specific focus on deployment tokens provides some implicit distinction.
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's no mention of prerequisites (like needing admin permissions), when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related sibling tools such as 'update_organization_by_id' or 'update_organization_shareable_deployment'.
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. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens when settings are changed (e.g., impact on existing deployments), or any rate limits. It also doesn't describe the response format or potential side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool that modifies organizational settings.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with only two parameters and no complex behavior described. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'shareable deployment' is, what the update affects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of organizational settings management and the lack of structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and outcomes.
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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters (id and status). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'shareable deployment' means in context or provide examples of valid status values. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but adds no extra 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 the action ('update') and the target ('organization's shareable deployment settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'get_shareable_deployment_info' by focusing specifically on shareable deployment settings. However, it doesn't specify what 'shareable deployment' entails, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being modified.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing organization ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'update_organization_deployment_token'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with complex parameters.
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 zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'storage and filter settings' which aligns with 'saveTo' and 'filter' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'update' and resource 'existing policy' with specific settings 'storage and filter', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'update_case', which also update resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 are no explicit when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools like 'create_policy' or 'delete_policy_by_id', leaving usage context unclear.
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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing priorities, or if the change is reversible. No rate limits, error conditions, or response format are mentioned.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications. Given the complexity of updating policy priorities across organizations, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('ids' and 'organizationIds') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Update') and resource ('priority order of policies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_policy' which likely updates policy content rather than priority ordering, but the core purpose is well-defined.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_policy' or 'create_policy', 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits/authentication needs, leaving significant gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the action and resource without unnecessary elaboration, earning 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 complexity of an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return values or error handling, failing to compensate for the missing structured data.
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 100% description coverage, documenting all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying updates to repository settings, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing SFTP repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_amazon_s3_repository' or 'update_ftps_repository' beyond the resource type, missing explicit distinction between repository types.
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 'create_sftp_repository' or other repository update tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing repository ID, or when not to use it, 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.
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 states this is an update operation but doesn't mention what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), whether authentication changes affect existing connections, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation and gets directly to the point.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what errors might occur, or how the tool behaves with partial parameter sets. The combination of mutation complexity and lack of structured documentation requires more descriptive context than provided.
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 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying that 'id' identifies the target repository. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter interactions or constraints.
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 ('Update') and target ('existing SMB repository by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_amazon_s3_repository' or 'create_smb_repository', but the specificity of 'SMB repository' provides adequate distinction within the repository management 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_smb_repository' or other repository update tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing repository ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool updates an existing rule, implying mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing triage rule'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, 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 tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the update does (e.g., partial vs. full updates), expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies security-related triage rules, more context is needed to guide safe and effective 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (id, description, rule, searchIn, organizationIds). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing triage rule by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_triage_rule' by specifying it updates existing rules, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_organization_by_id' or 'update_policy'.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule ID), compare with similar tools like 'update_policy', or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating new rules). The agent must infer usage from the name and schema 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 carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't explain what validation entails (e.g., checks for connectivity, permissions, or configuration errors), potential side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted 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.
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 (validation operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid configuration, what the output might be, or any error conditions, making it incomplete for effective 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'SASUrl' documented as 'SAS URL for Azure Storage access'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensation 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?
The description clearly states the action ('validate') and the resource ('Azure Storage repository configuration'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'validate_amazon_s3_repository' or 'validate_ftps_repository' beyond the Azure-specific mention, missing explicit differentiation.
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 'create_azure_storage_repository' or 'update_azure_storage_repository', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for validation. It lacks explicit usage instructions 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the required parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add' but not explicit), what permissions are needed, whether tags are appended or replace existing ones, how many assets can be affected, or what happens on failure. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond parameter 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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and requirements. It's front-loaded with the main action and doesn't contain unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from requirements more clearly.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, the scope of the operation (batch size limits), or side effects. Given the complexity of filtering assets and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more complete context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the two required parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Add tags') and target ('to specific assets based on filters'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_tags_from_assets' or 'create_auto_asset_tag', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by stating 'Requires specifying `filter.includedEndpointIds` and `tags`', which indicates prerequisites. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_tags_to_organization' or 'start_tagging', nor does it provide explicit 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.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Archive' implies a mutation that likely changes the case's state, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.
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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'archive' means operationally (e.g., does it hide the case, mark it read-only, or something else?), what happens after archiving, or potential side effects. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured context, more behavioral detail is needed.
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 100% description coverage (the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since there's only one parameter and the schema covers it completely, this doesn't create confusion. The description's mention of 'by its ID' aligns with the schema but doesn't add semantic 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 the action ('archive') and target resource ('a case by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'close_case_by_id' or 'delete_task_by_id', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 'close_case_by_id' or 'delete_task_by_id', nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when archiving is appropriate versus other case-modification operations.
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 states the tool performs a check, implying a read-only operation, but does not detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the response (e.g., boolean, error message). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words: 'Check if an organization name already exists in the system.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's function without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an AI 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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. While it meets basic requirements, it does not provide enough information for optimal agent decision-making in a server with many sibling tools, resulting in a score of 3.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter documented as 'Name of the organization to check.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity) or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter meaning without extra description input.
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: 'Check if an organization name already exists in the system.' This includes a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('organization name'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_case_name' or 'create_organization', which would be needed for a score of 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as 'create_organization' (which might require checking name availability first) or 'check_case_name' (a sibling with similar functionality for cases), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.
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 it 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does without redundancy or fluff, 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and output. For a simple read operation, it's functional but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.
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 100%, with the parameter 'profileId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples beyond 'full', no context on ID sources). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need 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 clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('acquisition profile'), specifying it retrieves details for a specific profile by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_acquisition_profiles' by focusing on a single profile rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_asset_by_id' or other get-by-ID tools, missing full sibling differentiation.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profile ID from 'list_acquisition_profiles'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_asset_by_id'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get detailed information about a specific asset by its ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. For a simple read tool, this is passable but leaves gaps that could hinder effective agent operation.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the asset to retrieve'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as ID format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific asset by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assets' or 'get_asset_tasks_by_id', which would require mentioning this retrieves a single asset's details rather than listing multiple assets or fetching related tasks.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_assets' for browsing multiple assets or 'get_asset_tasks_by_id' for asset-related tasks, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid asset ID. This leaves the agent 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format, which are needed for full contextual understanding in this environment.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'organizationIds') clearly. The description mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with the 'id' parameter but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('endpoints associated with a specific case'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_case_endpoints' or 'remove_endpoints_from_case', which handle similar resources but with 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_case_endpoints' over 'export_case_endpoints' (which might output data differently) or 'remove_endpoints_from_case' (which modifies data), leaving the agent without 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 carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all tasks' entails (e.g., completeness, format). This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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?
For a read-only tool with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and output details, leaving gaps in understanding how results are returned or any operational constraints.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'organizationIds'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'id' is for a case, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get') and resource ('tasks associated with a specific case'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_by_id' or 'list_tasks', which could retrieve tasks in different ways, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_task_by_id' (single task) or 'list_tasks' (all tasks), leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the organization ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and output, which are needed for full contextual understanding despite the simple 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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('users for a specific organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'get_user_by_id' (which aren't in the list but might exist elsewhere), so it misses full sibling distinction.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to other user-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to guess based on 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, format). 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 key input.
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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or return format, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as ID format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific evidence repository by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_repository' or 'list_repositories' that might exist, though 'list_repositories' is present among siblings as a distinct 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_repositories' for browsing or other 'get_*_by_id' tools for different resources, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the name and description.
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 states this is a 'get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it has rate limits. It mentions 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., user attributes, roles) or potential errors (e.g., invalid ID). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific user by their ID'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, and it directly communicates the essential action and resource without unnecessary elaboration.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions) and return values. For a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in clarifying what 'detailed information' entails and any usage constraints.
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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID is for a user. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_users' that retrieve multiple users. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_by_id' tools (e.g., 'get_asset_by_id', 'get_case_by_id') beyond the user resource.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_users' for browsing users or 'get_organization_users' for organization-specific user lists. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid user ID) or when this tool is preferred over other user-related operations.
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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information without any fluff or 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'drone analyzers' are in this context, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any system-specific nuances. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper 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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.
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 ('List all') and resource ('drone analyzers in the system'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* siblings like list_assets or list_cases, which follow the same pattern, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., list_assets, list_cases), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific list operation.
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 'List all e-discovery patterns', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope limitations). 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'e-discovery pattern' is, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a complex domain (e-discovery) with many siblings, more detail is needed to guide proper 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 1 parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as a 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools'. The description adds no parameter information, but with 0 actual parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline is 4 since no meaningful parameters exist to document.
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 'List' and the resource 'e-discovery patterns for file type detection', providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_triage_rules' or 'list_policies' that also list resources, missing full sibling distinction.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other listing tools in the sibling set, such as whether this is for administrative vs. operational 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all policies' entails (e.g., across all organizations or filtered). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List all policies in the system'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, 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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail on what the list returns (e.g., policy objects with fields) would improve completeness, but the simplicity keeps it from being severely inadequate.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'organizationIds' documented in the schema as 'Organization IDs to filter policies by. Leave empty to use default (0).' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of IDs or the implications of the default. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
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 'List all policies in the system' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('policies'), with 'all' indicating scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_policy_by_id' (which retrieves a single policy) or 'create_policy' (which creates rather than lists), though the distinction is somewhat implied by the verb 'list' versus 'get' or '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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_policies' over 'get_policy_by_id' for retrieving specific policies, or how it relates to other list tools like 'list_organizations'. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing organization access, 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 provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?
For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, without annotations or output details, it leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results, making it adequate but not thorough.
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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the optional 'organizationIds' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score.
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 ('List') and resource ('all evidence repositories'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_organizations' or 'list_cases' that follow the same pattern, but the resource specificity is adequate.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities beyond the parameter, or how it relates to other list operations like 'list_organizations' or 'get_repository_by_id'.
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 states 'List all tasks' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'all' entails (e.g., across organizations). For a tool with no annotations, this lacks critical 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all tasks'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
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, no output schema, and a simple input schema with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., read implications, scope limitations) and output information. For a list operation in a security/incident context, more context on permissions or data sensitivity 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'organizationIds' documented in the schema as filtering tasks by organization IDs, defaulting to 0 if empty. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 'List all tasks in the system' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), with 'all' indicating scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_cases' or 'list_organizations' by specifying tasks, but doesn't differentiate from other task-related tools like 'get_task_by_id' or 'list_asset_tasks_by_id' beyond the 'all' qualifier.
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. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_tasks' instead of 'get_task_by_id' for a specific task, 'get_task_assignments' for assignments, or 'list_asset_tasks_by_id' for asset-specific tasks. No context 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.
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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.
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 wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, making it easy to parse and understand 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 low complexity (a read operation with two optional parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format, data structure) and behavioral traits, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly in more complex scenarios.
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 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters ('organizationIds' and 'withCount') with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced semantic 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 the action ('List all') and resource ('triage rule tags in the system'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_triage_rules' or 'list_auto_asset_tags', which would require specifying it's about tags specifically for triage rules rather than the rules themselves or other tag types.
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 'list_triage_rules' for rules instead of tags, or 'create_triage_tag' for adding new tags. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.
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. While it indicates this is a mutation operation ('Remove tags'), it doesn't describe important behavioral traits such as whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects multiple assets simultaneously, or what happens if tags don't exist on the assets. The description mentions filtering but doesn't explain the consequences of the filter application.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and key requirements. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with parameter guidance, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from requirements more clearly.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes success. For a tool that modifies data across potentially multiple assets, more context about the operation's scope and consequences 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by highlighting two required parameters ('filter.includedEndpointIds' and 'tags'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 tags') and target ('from specific assets based on filters'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_tags_to_assets' by focusing on removal rather than addition, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tag-related tools like 'delete_tags_from_organization'.
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 implied usage guidance by specifying required parameters ('Requires specifying `filter.includedEndpointIds` and `tags`'), which suggests when the tool is applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_tags_from_organization' or 'remove_endpoints_from_case', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the parameter requirements.
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 implies a read-only operation ('List all') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
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, with every part contributing 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 low complexity (no functional parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but misses behavioral context (e.g., how artifacts are returned, any limitations), which is needed for a listing operation in this evidence collection domain.
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 100% description coverage, documenting the single parameter as a dummy for no-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers it. With zero functional parameters, the baseline is 4, as no compensation is 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?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and target resource ('acquisition artifacts'), with the purpose 'for evidence collection' providing context. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar listing tools like 'list_acquisition_profiles' or 'list_assets' among the many siblings, 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.
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. With many sibling tools including other listing functions (e.g., 'list_acquisition_profiles', 'list_assets'), the description lacks any context about scope, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 states the tool lists all rules but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, ordering, or any limitations (e.g., system constraints or performance considerations). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and resource.
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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, behavioral traits, or usage context. For a list operation, more information on return structure or system behavior would enhance completeness, though the low complexity keeps it from being severely inadequate.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description accurately reflects the lack of inputs.
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 ('List') and resource ('auto asset tag rules'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_auto_asset_tag_by_id' by indicating it lists all rules rather than retrieving a specific one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'list_assets' or 'list_triage_rules' beyond the resource 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_auto_asset_tag_by_id' for retrieving specific rules or 'create_auto_asset_tag' for adding new ones. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns active/inactive organizations. 'List all organizations' implies a read-only operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.
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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters.
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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it doesn't describe what information is returned about organizations, whether there are filters or sorting options, or how to handle large result sets. The simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a complete failure.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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 ('List') and resource ('all organizations in the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_organization_by_id' or 'list_users', which might also retrieve organization-related data in different ways.
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's no mention of prerequisites, context for listing organizations, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_organization_by_id' for specific organizations or 'list_users' which might include organizational data.
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 indicates a state change operation ('Open') but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it triggers notifications, what happens to case data, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'opening' entails (e.g., changing status, reactivating workflows), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools like 'close_case_by_id', more behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema ('The ID of the case to open'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Open') and resource ('previously closed case'), specifying it operates 'by its ID'. It distinguishes from 'close_case_by_id' by indicating opposite state change, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other case-related tools like 'update_case' or 'get_case_by_id'.
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 context through 'previously closed case', suggesting this tool should only be used on closed cases. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like 'update_case' for other modifications, nor does it reference prerequisites (e.g., needing case ID or permissions).
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 states the tool validates configuration without creating it, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by parameters but not described), potential rate limits, error handling, or what the validation output entails (e.g., success/failure, error details). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence: 'Validate FTPS repository configuration without creating it.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, avoids redundancy, and every word earns its place by clarifying the action and differentiating from creation. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.
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 (8 parameters, validation operation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what validation entails, output format) and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information, making it adequate but with clear gaps for agent understanding.
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 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'Name for the FTPS repository,' 'FTPS server hostname or IP address'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing description reinforcement.
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: 'Validate FTPS repository configuration without creating it.' It specifies the action (validate) and resource (FTPS repository configuration), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'create_ftps_repository' by emphasizing it's for validation only, not creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other validation tools like 'validate_amazon_s3_repository' or 'validate_azure_storage_repository' beyond the resource type.
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 context by stating 'without creating it,' suggesting this tool should be used for pre-creation validation rather than for creating repositories. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., other validation tools or the creation tool), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks detailed 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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates syntax and doesn't create rules, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, validation criteria, or response format, leaving gaps 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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it efficiently communicates the tool's function and key constraint.
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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait (no creation), but for a validation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on what validation entails or expected outcomes.
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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'rule' documented as 'The YARA rule content to validate'. The description doesn't add further semantics beyond this, such as YARA syntax specifics or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
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 ('validate') and resource ('triage rule syntax'), specifying it's for validation without creation. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_triage_rule' by explicitly stating 'without creating it', making the purpose specific and differentiated.
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 context by stating 'without creating it', which suggests this tool is for testing rules before creation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like 'create_triage_rule' or other validation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.
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:

[![air-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/binalyze/air-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/binalyze/air-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![air-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/binalyze/air-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/binalyze/air-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Lightport: Open-Sourcing Glama's AI Gateway
By punkpeye on April 27, 2026.
open source
OpenAI
Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security

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/binalyze/air-mcp'

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