AgentsID Guard

Official

by AgentsID-dev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly separated by domain and action, but several run commands (shell, git, aws, kubectl, ssh) could be confused. Descriptions help by scoping each to a specific system, but the overlapping purpose makes misselection possible.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names are lowercase with underscores and consistently use a domain prefix plus a noun or verb (e.g., file_read, env_list, secrets_delete). The pattern is highly predictable and uniform across the set.
Tool Count2/5
With 50 tools, the server is heavy and covers many distinct subsystems. While each tool has a purpose, the count exceeds typical MCP server scopes and may overwhelm agents with too many options.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides broad lifecycle coverage for secrets, files, processes, containers, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit update for cron jobs), but agents can work around them without dead ends.
Average 3.8/5 across 50 of 50 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('Requires package.read') but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes, data sources, or any side effects. This is a minimal addition.
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 short and front-loaded, with two sentences that each add value: the purpose and the permission requirement. It avoids superfluous text, but the brevity leaves some aspects under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what information is returned, but it merely says 'info' without specifying fields, format, or behavior. It also leaves the optional 'manager' parameter unclarified, making the tool incomplete 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on 'name' or 'manager' semantics, defaults, or interactions between them.
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 'Get info about a package', identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like package_list and package_install, though 'info' could be more specific about the actual data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the permission. The description only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only discloses a permission requirement, but does not mention return format, pagination, streaming, or that it defaults to 50 lines (though tail default is in schema). No side effects or limitations are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences. The permission note is useful and adds context without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and few annotations, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context such as what the logs look like, whether logs are streamed, or any error conditions. It is adequate but has clear 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'id' and 'tail' - it simply restates the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('Docker container logs'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like container_list (list containers) or log_read (system logs). It precisely states the tool's 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 vs alternatives. It only mentions a permission requirement, not when it is appropriate to choose this over container_inspect or log_read, nor any 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?
Beyond stating 'Requires system.read', the description discloses no behavioral traits such as return format, read-only nature, or potential side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with two pieces of information: the purpose and the permission requirement. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description conveys the core purpose and a permission note, but lacks usage guidance and return behavior. It is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.
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 covers the only parameter (path) with 100% coverage and a clear description. The tool description's 'for a path' adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The statement 'Get disk usage for a path' clearly specifies a specific verb (get) and resource (disk usage for a path), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_usage and file_info. The scope 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file_info, memory_usage). The only extra sentence mentions a permission requirement, not usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the permission requirement (log.read) and the basic read behavior, but does not disclose anything about output format, limits, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal for a tool that could have non-obvious behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, earning a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters, the description covers the basic function and permission but lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not describe the return value (though no output schema exists). It is minimally viable but leaves room for clarification on when to choose this over file_read or log_search.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (path and lines) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so it is at the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads the last N lines of a log file, using a specific verb (read), resource (log file), and scope (last N lines). This distinguishes it from similar tools like log_search or file_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_search, file_read, or container_logs. The only additional context is the permission requirement, which is a prerequisite but not usage 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds a permission requirement ('Requires log.read') and does not explain result format, search semantics, pagination, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a permission note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with fully documented parameters, the core action is clear. However, the lack of an output schema and missing usage/behavioral guidance means the agent must infer return values and appropriate use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are described in the schema with clear meanings (e.g., 'Search pattern (case-insensitive)', 'Max results (default: 50)'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pair ('search a log file for a pattern'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from generic file reads or shell commands by focusing on pattern search within a log file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 log_read, file_read, or shell_run. The only contextual hint is the permission requirement, which is not a usage guideline.
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 mentions 'requires package.danger.install (high risk)', hinting at elevated permission, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as running install scripts, altering system state, or potential side effects. Limited transparency for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a critical risk caveat. No redundant information, front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose and permission, but leaves out potential details like default manager behavior when omitted, side effects, or expected outcome. The parameter schema fills some gaps, but with no annotations or output schema, the description could be more thorough. However, it is adequate for a basic install 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'name' and 'manager'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the action itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Install a package' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like package_list and package_info. No ambiguity about the tool's 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra note is the permission requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction. Does not mention alternatives like package_list or when installation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each method requires a specific permission (http.get, http.post, etc.), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits other important behaviors such as response format, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and permission context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns. It does not, and also lacks information on timeouts, redirects, or error behavior. However, the parameter schema is comprehensive and the permission requirements are covered, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each HTTP method to its required permission, enriching the semantics of the 'method' parameter beyond the schema's enum listing. Other parameters are already well-described.
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 function with a specific verb and resource ('Make an HTTP request'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and context make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides permission requirements for each HTTP method but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or contextual cues beyond naming the method-specific permissions.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It does state a permission requirement, which is useful, but it does not disclose what the breakdown contains (e.g., used/free/total memory, per-process usage) or the return format. For such a simple tool, the permission hint is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and a permission note. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of context. It gives a basic purpose and permission requirement, but it lacks details about the output structure or how this tool complements system_info. For a simple query tool, this is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none 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 ('Get') and the resource ('memory usage breakdown'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like system_info or process_list, which might also relate to memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 system_info or process_list. The only additional information is a permission requirement ('Requires system.read'), which is not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the action and a permission requirement but fails to mention permanence, reversibility, or side effects on dependent secrets. This minimal context is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core action and a key constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete tool, the description lacks critical context such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related resources, or what the response will be. With no output schema to cover return values, the description should provide more behavioral detail to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a description for the 'name' parameter ('Secret name') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a secret from the vault', providing a specific verb (delete) and resource (secret). It distinguishes from sibling tools like secrets_list and secrets_store by explicitly indicating the deletion action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Requires secrets.danger', which provides a permission context and implies the tool should only be used with that privilege. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires secrets.read') which implies a read-only operation, but does not describe the return format, pagination, or any other behavioral effects. The description offers minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose, followed by a concise permission note. There is no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of rotations) and provides no usage context relative to sibling tools. The permission note is useful but insufficient for complete 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 a single parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Secret name'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'View rotation history for a secret' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_list (list secrets) and secrets_audit (audit), as it specifically targets rotation history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as secrets_audit or secrets_list. The only additional information is the permission requirement 'Requires secrets.read,' which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Requires container.write permission,' which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, behavior on already-running containers, or what happens if the container is missing, leaving important behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and required permission without any redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one simple parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks behavioral details such as error conditions or return values, which keeps it from being highly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with 'Container ID or name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Start a stopped Docker container' clearly states the verb (start) and resource (container), and specifies the state (stopped). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like container_stop or container_remove, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for containers that are stopped, giving some context. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do if the container is already running.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required permission but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has any side effects, which is critical 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that state the core action and the key permission requirement. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and permission. However, it omits behavioral consequences like irreversibility, which would make it more complete for an agent executing a destructive 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 description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the input schema already documents the 'path' parameter completely, achieving 100% coverage. This meets the baseline for parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a file') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_read or file_write. The name and description align perfectly, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the action is self-evident. The permission requirement ('file.delete') is a prerequisite, not a usage directive, so guidance is implied rather than stated.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions path restrictions ('Restricted to allowed directories') and permission ('Requires file.read permission'), but omits details about return format, error handling, or binary file behavior. This adds some context but is not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, with the first front-loading the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and no redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the purpose, restrictions, and permission, but it does not explain the return value, error scenarios, or edge cases like reading directories. This is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'path' as 'Path to the file' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about path format, absolute/relative paths, or validation rules, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read a file's contents' with a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools include file_write, file_delete, and file_list, so the read operation is inherently distinguished from 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 vs alternatives like file_info or file_list. The description only states restrictions and permission requirements, which are prerequisites rather than usage context or alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful side effect (creating parent directories) and an auth requirement (file.write permission), but it omits critical behavior such as whether existing file content is overwritten or if the operation is atomic. This is a significant gap for a write tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by two essential behavioral details. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite, and directory creation. However, it misses overwrite semantics and return behavior, which are relevant for a mutation tool. It is adequate but has clear gaps that could lead to incorrect assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; the schema already describes path and content clearly. The baseline of 3 applies because parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Write content to a file', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like file_read and file_delete. It also adds helpful detail about creating parent directories, which further clarifies the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to write content to a file) and mentions a permission prerequisite, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the required permission (network.read), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits like typical runtime, output format, or potential side effects. With no annotations to rely on, the description carries full burden but only partially fulfills it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Traceroute to a host') followed by the required permission. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or excessive detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the essential purpose and permission. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool and does not describe the expected output or return behavior, which is relevant since no output schema is provided. The description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes 'host' as 'Hostname or IP'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the target as 'host'. The baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Traceroute' with a clear target ('to a host'), which precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling network tools like network_ping or network_ports. The phrase 'Requires network.read permission' adds context without obscuring the core 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 such as network_ping or network_dns. It only mentions a permission prerequisite, which is not a usage scenario or exclusion. There is no 'when to use' or '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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement but fails to mention the potential destructive consequences (e.g., KILL signal terminates the process), the default signal (TERM), or irreversibility. For a process mutation tool, 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 concise sentence, with no redundant wording. It states the action and a key prerequisite without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as default signal behavior, whether the operation is reversible, and what the return value indicates. Without an output schema, these details would help complete the picture.
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 documents both pid and signal with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, only confirming the action of sending a signal. It does not explain signal name semantics or what pid represents beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send a signal to a process' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like process_list and process_info. The permission note adds context without ambiguity.
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 requirement for process.kill permission implies when the tool is available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and permission but does not disclose the default behavior (e.g., only running containers unless 'all' is set), output format, or potential errors. The core read-only nature is implied by 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the action and the permission requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information, 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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not mention what the response includes (container IDs, names, etc.), and there is no annotation to fill the gap. This leaves the agent uncertain about the return value, making the description incomplete.
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 'all' parameter fully described in the schema ('Include stopped containers (default: false)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Docker containers'). It is distinct from sibling tools like container_inspect and container_logs, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a permission requirement ('Requires container.read permission') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_inspect or container_logs. The usage is implied by the name and context, but there is no explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions permission requirements for read/write operations, which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not describe output, error handling, or execution context (e.g., working directory).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences communicate purpose and permission requirements with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follows with essential authorization context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with a single parameter, the description covers purpose and access nuances. It omits output format, but for a command runner this is somewhat implicit. Overall, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description includes examples. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Run a git command'), and the examples clarify scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like shell_run, but the name and description make the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides permission context (read vs write operations) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as shell_run. Usage is implied rather than clearly prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or output format, though the read-only nature is implicitly clear for a list 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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is adequate, but it could be more complete by mentioning the output structure or any special conditions (e.g., admin requirements). Slight gaps remain.
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, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, which is appropriate since none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('permission categories') plus scope ('what they control'), clearly distinguishing from related tools like check_permission.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the required permission 'package.read', which is useful, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output format, or potential side effects. This adds some transparency but leaves 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the permission requirement. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for this simple tool: it does not explain the behavior of the 'manager' parameter (e.g., what 'auto' does or how it affects results) nor the return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should have elaborated on what 'list installed packages' returns (names, versions, structure).
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 'manager' described as 'Package manager' and an enum. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List installed packages' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like package_info and package_install. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to list installed packages) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like package_info or package_install. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the permission requirement ('Requires secrets.read') and lists the categories of anomalies, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or whether it has side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds value. The list of anomaly types is informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential invocation info (purpose, permission) but omits expected return value or any guidance on how results should be interpreted. It is adequate for a simple detection tool but incomplete regarding output behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('vault anomalies'), and enumerates concrete anomaly types (expired secrets, broad scopes, stale keys, unusual access patterns). It is distinguishable from siblings by focusing on anomaly detection, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from secrets_audit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to detect anomalies) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like secrets_audit. It lacks exclusions or context about how it differs from other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required permission ('container.read'), which is useful context. However, it does not confirm that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though the verb 'Get' implies safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences. The first states the core function, the second adds the permission requirement. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema or annotations). The description covers purpose and permission but does not describe the return value or behavior on missing containers. Given the simplicity, it is minimally 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter as 'Container ID or name'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a Docker container'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like container_list (which lists containers) and container_logs (which fetches logs). Broad but precise enough for selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The purpose implies usage for inspecting a single container by ID or name, but it does not state when not to use it or how it differs from container_list or container_logs.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement for secret-named vars, which is useful, but does not mention return format, error behavior, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no unnecessary words. The permission note is directly relevant and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple getter, but the lack of an output schema means the description should ideally mention the return value or behavior when the variable is not found. This is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the 'name' parameter already described as 'Environment variable name'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a specific environment variable' with a clear verb and resource. The word 'specific' distinguishes it from env_list, which would retrieve all variables, and from env_set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single variable but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like env_list or env_set. It provides a permission condition for secret-named vars but no 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds the permission requirement 'Requires network.read permission', which is valuable. However, it does not describe the expected output, error behavior, or side effects beyond the permission note.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key requirement, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the ping result will contain (e.g., latency, packet loss), which is a gap given no output schema. It also does not address when to use ping versus related network 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 provides full coverage for both parameters (host and count) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Ping a host' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_traceroute and network_dns by focusing on the ping operation, a standard network diagnostic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking host reachability via ping but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does note the required permission, which is a prerequisite, but does not state exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the required 'process.read permission', which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (no side effects), nor does it describe behavior for non-existent processes or potential errors. This is a partial 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target, then adds the permission requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose but leaves gaps: it does not describe the return format ('detailed info' is vague), nor error conditions or prerequisites beyond permission. This is sufficient for a minimal tool but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'pid' parameter with its description 'Process ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed info') and the target ('a specific process'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like process_list (which lists processes) and process_kill (which terminates processes). It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you have a specific PID and need details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as using process_list to find PIDs first. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the encryption approach ('per-secret derived encryption keys') and the required permission ('secrets.write'), which is helpful. However, it omits critical behaviors like what happens if a secret with the same name already exists (overwrite vs error) and what the tool returns. This leaves gaps for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, encryption detail, and permission requirement. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and good schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose and a security detail. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values, and it fails to address the overwrite/replace semantics for existing secret names. These are important gaps that a complete description should cover.
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 three parameters (name, value, metadata). The description adds no additional parameter-level details or usage nuances, so it does not go beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Store a secret in the encrypted vault.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_list or secrets_delete, and the permission requirement further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for storing secrets, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as secrets_delete or secrets_update. The mention of the required permission is more of an access constraint than a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permission scoping and SSH key prerequisites, but does not mention behavior such as output handling, exit code propagation, or potential side effects of running arbitrary commands. This is useful context but incomplete for a tool without annotation safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first immediately states the core function, the second adds permissions and prerequisites. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and authorization, but omits return value/error behavior and does not address when to choose this over local shell execution. While not inadequate, it has clear gaps 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The permission scoping note refers to the host parameter but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (run a command) on a specific resource (remote host via SSH), and distinguishes itself from siblings like shell_run by specifying SSH and remote host. It also adds context about permission scoping, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (for remote SSH command execution) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like shell_run or git_run. It mentions prerequisites (SSH keys) and permission scoping but lacks direct comparison or exclusion of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful context that container.write permission is required, but it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the container is already stopped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the key permission requirement. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it states the action and a key precondition. It could be slightly richer by noting reversibility or alternatives, but the core use case is adequately covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id' already described as 'Container ID or name.' The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Stop a running Docker container,' which is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes it from siblings like container_start and container_remove. It also adds a permission requirement, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to stop a running container) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not clarify that container_remove should be used for deleting a container, or that container_stop is reversible via container_start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required cron.write permission, which is useful for authorization. It does not mention duplicate handling, schedule validation, or what the operation returns, but for a simple add operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action. The permission requirement is included as an essential qualifier, and there is no wasted or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-required-parameter creation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential action and permission context. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that created jobs can be listed with cron_list, but this is not necessary for selection or 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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Command to run' and 'Cron schedule with an example'), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action and resource: 'Add a cron job.' It is concise and distinct from the sibling tools cron_list and cron_remove, so an agent can easily differentiate when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied by the verb 'Add' and the resource 'cron job,' and the permission requirement gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be preferred, so guidance is adequate but not detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a useful permission requirement ('Requires cron.read permission') and scoping to the current user. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes only essential information: the action, scope, and permission requirement. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose and permission, and the verb 'list' implies a return of cron job data. Minor lack of return format details prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is sufficient. No additional semantic detail is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('current user's cron jobs'), making it distinct from sibling tools like cron_add and cron_remove. It also scopes to the current user, providing clear 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cron_add or cron_remove. It only states what it does and a permission prerequisite, but no contextual or exclusionary information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the permission requirement (file.info), which is valuable. However, it does not describe potential side effects, return format, or behavior on missing files or permission failures, leaving some 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists key return fields, followed by the permission requirement. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter metadata retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, permission, and key data points. With no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the return structure, but the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameter, so the score matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('file metadata') with concrete examples of the data returned (size, type, permissions, timestamps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_read (content), file_list (directory listing), and file_delete (removal).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving metadata rather than file contents, which differentiates from file_read and file_list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving the selection largely implicit.
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 present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required permission (secrets.read) and the output dimensions (who accessed, what, when, purpose), but does not mention ordering, pagination, or limits. This is moderate transparency for a read-only log view.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that concisely states the purpose, output fields, and permission requirement. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear with no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the access log content and the required permission, which covers the essential context. It does not specify ordering or date-range behavior, but these are not critical for a basic access-log viewing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'name' with its type, optionality, and filter purpose. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'View' with the resource 'access log for secrets' and explicitly outlines the data fields (who, what, when, purpose). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_history or secrets_anomalies by focusing on audit log access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for auditing secret access but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. Sibling tools such as secrets_history and secrets_anomalies are not mentioned, so the usage context is only implied, not explicitly differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the requirement of network.read permission, which is a useful behavioral/auth context. However, it does not disclose additional traits like output format, error behavior, or rate limits. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a necessary permission note. Every word is useful, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the lookup returns. It does not, and also omits any edge-case behavior. However, for a straightforward DNS lookup with well-described parameters, the description is mostly complete for basic 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'domain' and 'type' have descriptive text. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a DNS lookup for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling network tools like ping, ports, and traceroute by focusing solely on DNS queries.
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 gives clear context: it is a DNS lookup tool for a given domain. It does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough within the network tool family to guide the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the network.read permission requirement, which is valuable context. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not elaborate on the output format, scope (TCP/UDP, interfaces), or any potential side effects, though for a list operation these are less critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides an essential permission note. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward read-only list), the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action and the permission requirement. Without richer schema or annotations, there is little additional context an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter info because none exist; there is nothing to compensate for.
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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'listening network ports'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_ping, network_traceroute, and network_dns, which serve different diagnostic purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios (e.g., checking open ports, troubleshooting connectivity) or contrast with network_ping/traceroute/dns. The only usage-related detail is the permission requirement, which is a precondition, not a context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses an important requirement (cron.danger permission) and implies bulk removal via pattern matching, but it does not detail return values, error behavior, or irreversibility. This is better than nothing but remains sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and includes only essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action, the matching logic, and a key permission requirement. However, the pattern format (e.g., glob vs. regex) and the consequences of removal are left ambiguous, which could cause misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'pattern', is fully described in the schema ('Text pattern to match in cron entries to remove'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description reiterates the pattern concept but adds no further semantic detail, such as matching syntax or whether multiple entries are affected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove cron jobs') and the specific scope ('matching a pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools cron_add and cron_list by focusing on deletion with a pattern match.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (removing cron jobs by pattern) and notes a prerequisite ('Requires cron.danger permission'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as using cron_list to view jobs or cron_add to create them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the burden of disclosing that this is a mutating operation and states the required permission (env.write). It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing variables, but the action is straightforward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences contain all the essential information without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the operation and the required permission. A bit more context about persistence or overwrite behavior could be added, but it is not necessary for basic 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 coverage is 100%, with name and value both described simply. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Set an environment variable.' It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from the sibling reading tools env_list and env_get, and from other write tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context (this is the setter for environment variables) but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. The permission note is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the core behavioral trait: the agent never sees raw secrets, placeholders are substituted, and secrets are scrubbed from the response. This is significant context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover failure modes or proxy absence 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the critical security behavior and a prerequisite. Perfectly concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters and nested objects, the description provides key behavioral context (injection, scrubbing, requirement) that the schema cannot. It doesn't explicitly state return format, but that is implied by an HTTP request tool. Overall, it covers the essential non-schema information well.
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 already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the concept of placeholders and scrubbing but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Make an HTTP request with vault secrets injected server-side.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the unique value proposition (agent never sees raw secrets) distinguishes it from the sibling http_request tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an HTTP request needs secrets and the agent must not see them, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like http_request or provide when-not guidance. The requirement 'Requires secrets.proxy' is a prerequisite, not a comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the permission requirement 'Requires secrets.write,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible, what happens if the secret does not exist, or how the scope is applied). The example clarifies allowedTools but leaves behavioral details unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example and a permission note. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case, includes a permission requirement, and provides an illustrative example. It does not explain return values, but that is not critical for a configuration/mutation tool, and the sibling context plus schema fill most 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 parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the meaning of allowedTools with an example, but this is already present in the schema. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Restrict which tools can use a secret.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like secrets_store, secrets_delete, and secrets_inject by focusing on access scoping, reinforced with a concrete example (API key scoped to http.post).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating the action and giving an example use case, which implies when to use it. It also notes the required permission 'Requires secrets.write.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, though the purpose is specific enough to differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the permission requirement 'Requires system.read', which is useful, but it does not disclose other traits such as whether the call is read-only, response format, or potential performance impact. The information provided is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get system overview') and lists the covered items. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple system info tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the scope of the overview and the required permission. It does not need to document return values in detail since the listed items imply the expected data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no misleading information. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'system overview', and enumerates the specific data points covered (OS, CPU, memory, disk, uptime). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on narrower areas like disk_usage or memory_usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for a broad system overview but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over more specialized sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('process.read permission') and a behavioral detail ('sorted by CPU usage'), which are useful beyond the basic action. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, which would be expected for a read operation without an 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 sentence that front-loads the action ('List running processes'), includes a key detail (sorting by CPU usage), and ends with the permission requirement. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or clutter.
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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is the only source of contextual information. It provides the tool's purpose and permission requirement but does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., process objects with PID, command, CPU percentage). This is a notable gap for a listing tool, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List running processes sorted by CPU usage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_info (which provides details on a specific process) and process_kill (which terminates processes). The verb 'list' and the resource 'running processes' are 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to list processes) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'for more details on a single process, use process_info.' The usage is clear from context but not explicitly differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: it does not execute the action, meaning it has no side effects. However, it does not describe the return format or any additional limitations, but given no annotations, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and behavior. It could optionally mention the return format, but it is not essential for correct 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 already provides full coverage of the single parameter, including examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly identifies the resource ('tool/action') with the distinguishing scope ('without executing it'). This clearly conveys the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools that actually execute actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used to verify permissions before executing an action. It provides clear context about when to use it, but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, so it scores a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive action ('Remove') and the elevated permission requirement, which is critical behavioral context. However, it doesn't elaborate on consequences like data loss or volume removal, though the 'danger' permission hints at severity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loading the action and then adding the permission note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description is sufficient: it states what it does and the required permission. No output schema exists, and return values are not critical for a remove operation. It could add more about irreversible effects, but the permission warning compensates slightly.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'id' and 'force'. The tool description adds no additional parameter insight beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a Docker container') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling container tools like container_list, container_start, and container_stop. It also adds the required permission, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a container) and a key prerequisite (requires container.danger permission). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool's name and sibling context make this less necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission model: SELECT/SHOW requires db.read, INSERT/UPDATE requires db.write.*, DELETE/DROP requires db.danger.*. This is valuable behavioral insight not evident from the schema alone, though it doesn't mention return formats or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: four short sentences, each adding value. It leads with the purpose and quickly covers permissions and supported databases, with no redundant phrases or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that can execute arbitrary SQL, the description covers essential context: purpose, permission requirements, and supported DBs. It lacks explicit warnings about destructive operations or return behavior, but the permission hints for DELETE/DROP mitigate that. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('SQL query to execute' and 'Database URL (optional, uses GUARD_DB_URL env var if not provided)'). The description does not add additional parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Run a SQL query', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing supported database types (PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite), making it unambiguous versus shell_run or http_request.
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: when you need to execute SQL, this is the tool. It lists supported databases, giving clear context. No explicit when-not or alternatives are named, but none are necessary given the sibling tools are unrelated to direct SQL execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the return content (size and type) and the required permission (file.list), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention recursion behavior, hidden files, or sorting, which are common list-operation variants.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, immediately states the core action, and includes essential permission info without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers what it does and what it returns, though it could mention depth/hidden-file behavior. Given the lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.
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 already fully describes the single parameter 'path' with 100% coverage, including its default. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics; it only reiterates the general purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in a directory') and adds output details ('with size and type info'), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_read (contents) and file_info (metadata).
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?
It provides clear context: this tool lists files in a directory and requires the file.list permission. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like file_info or file_read, nor does it specify when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permission requirements for different command types, which is valuable. However, it omits behavioral details like output format, error handling, or whether commands run in a sandboxed environment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise permission guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and permission requirements adequately. It lacks details on execution behavior or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and standard command-runner pattern, completeness is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'command' parameter with examples. The description adds semantic meaning by categorizing commands into read/write/destructive ops and linking them to permission requirements, enriching the parameter beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run a kubectl command' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like shell_run, git_run, and aws_run. The examples (get, apply, delete) further clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Kubernetes operations and provides explicit permission categories for read, write, and destructive commands. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the tool name and context make the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the key side effect (refusal of proxy injection after expiry) and a permission requirement. It does not mention reversibility or effects on existing secrets, but the core behavior is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the consequence, and ends with the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, behavioral outcome, and required permission. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits edge cases like whether a TTL can be extended.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (name and ttlMinutes), so the description does not need to add detail. The baseline is 3 for high schema coverage, and the description offers no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a time-to-live on a secret, which is a specific verb+resource. It also highlights the consequence ('After expiry, proxy injection will refuse to use it'), distinguishing it from sibling secret tools like secrets_store, secrets_list, and secrets_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires secrets.write') and implies the tool is used for temporary secret validity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission validation ('Validated against AgentsID permissions') and typical allow/block behavior for read vs destructive commands. This provides significant operational context, though it omits details about output handling and error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently adds crucial permission context without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and permission constraints. It lacks details on output format and failure modes, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes 'command' as 'The shell command to run' (100% coverage). The description adds value by illustrating concrete command examples (ls, cat, grep; rm, chmod) and associating them with permission outcomes, which aids in constructing valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Run a shell command' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from wrapper tools like git_run or ssh_run by covering arbitrary shell commands, even though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives guidance on command types: 'Read commands (ls, cat, grep) typically allowed' and 'Destructive commands (rm, chmod) blocked unless permitted.' This helps the agent know what to run, but it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus sibling tools like file_read or ssh_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the authorization model (read/write/danger) and what kinds of commands fall into each category. This goes beyond a generic 'runs a command' description and gives the agent essential context about side effects and 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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently adds permission context. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and the authorization requirements. This is sufficient for an agent to select and safely call the tool without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'command' with a clear description. The tool description adds value by providing realistic example commands and categorizing command types, which helps the agent understand the expected format and scope beyond the schema's generic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource ('Run an AWS CLI command') and provides concrete command examples ('s3 ls', 'ec2 describe-instances'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like shell_run or git_run by explicitly targeting AWS CLI.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool and what permissions are required for different operation types (read/write/destructive). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the permission tiers give the agent actionable guidance for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two key behaviors: secrets are auto-filtered (so sensitive variables will not appear) and a specific permission is required. This is meaningful and goes beyond the minimal 'list' definition. It could mention the return format or that it is read-only, but the verb 'List' already implies non-mutating 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler or redundant details. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It clearly states what it does (list env vars), the key filtering behavior (secrets auto-filtered), and the required permission. Although there is no output schema, the return value is conceptually simple and needs no further explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed as there are no arguments to understand.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List environment variables' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'secrets auto-filtered' to clarify scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like env_get (read a single variable) and env_set (modify variables).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list all environment variables) and includes the prerequisite 'Requires env.read permission' which is a gate for usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the listing purpose implicitly excludes env_get/env_set, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds key behavioral context: values are never exposed, and a specific scope is required. This goes beyond a simple 'list' statement, informing the agent about security and authorization, though it does not cover all possible edge cases (e.g., empty results, pagination).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that provide key information without waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds an important qualifier and permission requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the security guarantee, and the required permission, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none; the schema already covers this trivially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List'), resource ('secret names'), and adds a crucial scope distinction ('values never exposed'), which differentiates it from sibling tools that might reveal values. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the required permission (secrets.read), giving the agent a clear precondition for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit 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:

[![shell-guard MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AgentsID-dev/shell-guard/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AgentsID-dev/shell-guard)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![shell-guard MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AgentsID-dev/shell-guard/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AgentsID-dev/shell-guard)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AgentsID-dev/shell-guard'

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