MCP Datadog Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are generally distinct within their specific domains (e.g., create_monitor vs. delete_monitor), but there is significant overlap across similar operations for different resources (e.g., multiple create/delete/get tools for various integrations like AWS, Azure, Slack). The descriptions help clarify the target resource, but the sheer volume (670 tools) makes it challenging to distinguish between similar tools without careful reading. Some redundancy exists, such as create_dashboard and create_dashboard_v1, which could confuse agents.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_monitor, get_slo, update_user), which is predictable and readable. However, there are minor deviations, such as tools like downtimes_cancel and downtimes_list that use a noun_verb format, and some tools with suffixes like _v1 or _v2 (e.g., create_dashboard_v1). Overall, the naming is largely consistent, aiding in navigation despite the large set.
Tool Count2/5
With 670 tools, the count is extremely high, far exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. While Datadog is a comprehensive monitoring platform, this many tools creates a heavy cognitive load and makes the server difficult to use efficiently. It feels bloated and could overwhelm agents, leading to selection errors or inefficiencies in tool discovery and usage.
Completeness5/5
The tool set appears highly complete for the Datadog domain, covering a wide range of resources (e.g., monitors, dashboards, logs, integrations) with full CRUD operations (create, get, update, delete) and additional actions like search, aggregate, and validate. There are no obvious gaps; agents should be able to perform most Datadog-related tasks without dead ends, given the extensive coverage across monitoring, security, cost management, and more.
Average 3/5 across 670 of 670 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 16 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 1, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Create a monitor' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response might contain. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is too brief to be helpful - it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful context. A single sentence with slightly more detail would be more valuable than this minimal phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose statement, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a monitor is, what it monitors, required configuration, expected response format, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by the extensive sibling tool list (which includes many monitoring-related tools), this description provides insufficient context for proper tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already indicates (none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a monitor' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'create_monitor_v1'. It provides no additional specificity about what type of monitor is being created, what resources are involved, or what distinguishes this from other creation tools like 'create_dashboard' or 'create_slo' in the sibling list. While the verb 'create' is clear, the resource 'monitor' remains vague without context about monitoring domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools for creating different resources (e.g., create_dashboard, create_slo, create_synthetics_tests), but the description offers no context about what a 'monitor' is, when it should be created, or what prerequisites might be required. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Test a rule' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only validation, a destructive test, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected output might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about what 'testing' entails or what 'rule' refers to. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't convey enough meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is completely inadequate for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. 'Test a rule' doesn't explain what testing means in this context, what the expected behavior is, what security monitoring rules are being tested, or what the agent should expect as a result. For a tool that presumably performs some validation or testing operation, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's acceptable given the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test a rule' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_security_monitoring_rules_tests'. It doesn't specify what kind of testing occurs, what resources are involved, or what 'rule' refers to. While it includes a verb ('Test'), it lacks specificity about the resource being tested or the testing mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' or 'create_security_monitoring_rule_test'. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the vague action of testing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Post event' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful post. This is critically inadequate for a tool that presumably creates data in a system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information about what the tool does, making it inefficient for an AI agent. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't earn enough meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides only two words of minimal information, this is completely inadequate. The agent cannot understand what 'posting an event' entails, what system it interacts with, what the expected behavior is, or how to use it correctly. This fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's no parameter burden, though the description doesn't add any parameter-related context (which isn't needed here).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Post event' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'events_post'. It provides no additional specificity about what type of events, to what system, or with what payload. While 'post' implies a creation/write operation, this is minimal information that doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (like create_events, events_list, search_events) that appear related to events, but the description offers no differentiation. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'List rules' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'List rules' is extremely concise (two words), this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary context and is too brief to be helpful. Every word should earn its place, but here the description lacks the essential information that would make it useful to an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (security monitoring rules likely involve security policies, configurations, or alerts), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the agent has no information about what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or what behavioral characteristics to expect. This fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since there are none. While it could mention that no parameters are required, the absence of parameters is adequately handled by the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the empty input structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List rules' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_security_monitoring_rules'. It provides the verb 'List' and resource 'rules' but lacks specificity about what kind of rules (security monitoring rules) and offers no differentiation from sibling tools. While it states a basic action, it doesn't clarify scope, format, or context beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools (like get_security_monitoring_rule, search_security_monitoring_signals, etc.) that might retrieve similar or related data, but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get an SLO correction' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it retrieves a single correction by ID, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief ('Get an SLO correction'), this brevity represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence fails to convey necessary context about what the tool does, making it inefficient despite its short length. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one doesn't provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (multiple SLO correction operations) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and meaningful description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what an SLO correction is, how it's identified, what data is returned, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already indicates (none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an SLO correction' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_slo_correction'. It provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('SLO correction') but lacks specificity about what an SLO correction is or what this retrieval entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_slo_corrections_v1' or 'get_slo_corrections_v1_2'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to SLO corrections (e.g., 'get_slo_corrections_v1', 'update_slo_correction', 'delete_slo_correction'), but the description offers no context about when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus the others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, 'Create incident' offers no information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes an 'incident' in this context. It fails to describe the creation process, success criteria, or any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'Create incident' is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. The two-word description lacks necessary detail about the tool's purpose and usage, failing to provide a clear, front-loaded explanation. This brevity results in ambiguity, not efficiency, as it omits critical information that would help an agent understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what an 'incident' is, how creation works, what data might be returned, or any operational constraints. For a mutation tool in a context-rich server with many siblings, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description avoids misleading additions, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion in a parameter-less context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create incident' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'incidents_create' without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'incident', but fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'incidents_get', 'incidents_list', or 'incidents_update', leaving the agent unclear about what specifically this creation entails compared to other incident-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or distinctions from sibling tools such as 'incidents_update' or 'create_cases', which might handle similar incident-related creation tasks. This absence leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Update incident' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether the update is destructive or reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. No behavioral context is provided beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide the necessary information an agent needs to understand and use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand what this tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or how to invoke it properly. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. However, it also doesn't explain why there are no parameters or what the update mechanism might be, which could be confusing for a tool named 'update'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update incident' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'incidents_update' without adding any meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what aspects of an incident can be updated, what resources are involved, or how this differs from other incident-related tools like 'incidents_create', 'incidents_get', or 'incidents_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to incidents (incidents_create, incidents_get, incidents_list), but the description doesn't indicate when an update operation is appropriate versus creating a new incident or retrieving existing ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Metrics: query scalars' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks any meaningful front-loading of information - the tool name already contains 'metrics_query_scalars', so 'Metrics: query scalars' adds minimal value. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient utility to justify even this brief description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a metrics query tool in a system with numerous sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description that doesn't explain what 'scalars' means or how this differs from other query tools, an AI agent would have insufficient information to understand when and how to use this tool correctly. The description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information that could be missing or inadequately described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Metrics: query scalars' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It indicates the domain (metrics) and action (query scalars) but lacks specificity about what 'scalars' means in this context or what resources are involved. Compared to siblings like 'metrics_query_timeseries' or 'query_timeseries', it doesn't clearly differentiate what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'metrics_query_timeseries', 'query_timeseries', 'query_scalars', and various aggregate analytics tools, there's no indication of what scenarios warrant using this specific metrics query tool. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Delete a notebook' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes its limited space by merely restating the tool name instead of providing any useful contextual information. Every word should earn its place, but here the words add minimal value beyond what's already obvious from the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needs, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'notebook' is in this context, doesn't warn about destructive consequences, doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides no information about the operation's outcome or potential errors. This leaves the agent dangerously uninformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description 'Delete a notebook' implies a target notebook resource, which aligns with the empty schema suggesting parameters might be handled differently (e.g., via URL path). This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a notebook' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'notebooks_delete' without adding meaningful specificity. While it clearly indicates a deletion action on a notebook resource, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like delete_notebook, delete_monitor, delete_dashboard, etc.) or provide any context about what a 'notebook' represents in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a notebook ID), no indication of what happens after deletion (permanent vs reversible), no reference to related tools (like notebooks_get, notebooks_create, notebooks_update), and no warnings about destructive consequences. The agent receives zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'List roles' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, what format they return, or any rate limits. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'List roles' is technically concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The two words fail to provide necessary context about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description does not achieve.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The agent needs to know what 'roles' means in this context, what information is returned, whether there are filters or pagination, and how to interpret results. The description provides none of this essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is warranted since no parameter documentation is needed, though a perfect 5 would require the description to explicitly state 'no parameters required'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List roles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'roles_list'. It provides the basic verb 'List' and resource 'roles', but lacks specificity about what kind of roles or what information is included. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, though most siblings are create/delete/update operations rather than list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to other list operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Create SLO' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'Create SLO' is technically concise, it represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The two-word description fails to provide necessary context and is too minimal to be helpful. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description provides almost no value beyond the tool name itself.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description fails to explain what an SLO is, what data is required for creation, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide much more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't mention the lack of parameters, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4 since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create SLO' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'slos_create'. It provides no additional information about what an SLO is, what resources it creates, or what specific functionality this tool offers beyond the basic verb. While it indicates a creation action, it lacks specificity about the resource being created.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for creation. With sibling tools like 'slos_get', 'slos_list', 'slos_update', and 'slos_delete', the description fails to distinguish when creation is appropriate versus other SLO operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Update SLO' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens when an SLO is updated (e.g., historical data implications), whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal content fails to serve the required informational purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (updating SLOs) with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The description doesn't explain what SLOs are, what can be updated, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from similar tools. For a tool that presumably modifies important service level objectives, this level of documentation is dangerously incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation (none required). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, the baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is appropriately set at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update SLO' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'slos_update' without adding any meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('SLO'), but provides no details about what aspects of an SLO can be updated, how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_slo' (which appears to be a different tool), or what an SLO represents in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to SLOs (create_slos, slos_get, slos_list, slos_delete, update_slo, etc.), but the description offers no differentiation. It doesn't mention prerequisites, required permissions, or appropriate contexts for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Update' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, what happens to existing configurations, rate limits, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this description suffers from severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase 'Update resource filters' doesn't provide enough information to be useful. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness - this description is brief but fails to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'update') with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The agent cannot understand what this tool actually does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the outcome will be. For a cloud security management tool that likely modifies security configurations, this level of documentation is dangerously insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none required). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, the baseline for zero parameters with full coverage is appropriately high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update resource filters' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_cloud_security_management_resource_filters'. While it confirms the action (update) and target (resource filters), it provides no additional specificity about what resource filters are, what they control, or what aspect of cloud security management they affect. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, typical use cases, or when this specific update operation would be appropriate versus other cloud security management tools. The agent receives zero contextual guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Update a monitor' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing monitor configurations, whether changes are reversible, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every word should earn its place, but 'Update a monitor' provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself. The description fails to use its limited space to convey meaningful information about the tool's purpose or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'updating a monitor' entails, what data might be required (despite 0 parameters), what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from related operations. Given the complexity implied by monitor management systems, this description leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, the baseline for this situation is appropriately high since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a monitor' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a monitor can be updated, what resource is involved, or how this differs from similar tools like 'update_monitor' (without the _v1 suffix). While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks any distinguishing details about scope or functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'mute_monitor_v1'. An agent would have no information about when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other monitor-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what gets updated, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It doesn't front-load important information or provide any meaningful content beyond the tool name. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase fails to provide value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what 'organization' means in this context, what fields can be updated, what permissions are required, and what the tool returns. The current description provides none of this necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the absence of parameters, though the description could theoretically add context about why no parameters are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update your organization' restates the tool name 'update_org' without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('organization') but provides no details about what aspects can be updated, making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement. Compared to sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_monitor', it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or distinguish it from similar tools like 'update_org_config' or 'create_orgs'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides zero behavioral information beyond the basic 'Create user' statement. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it fails to mention anything about permissions required, whether this creates internal vs. external users, what data is returned, whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete lack of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is so minimal that it fails to provide any useful information beyond the tool name itself. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't add enough value to justify even their minimal presence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, this fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for an AI agent to use it effectively. The description doesn't explain what 'user' means in this context, what the creation entails, what happens upon success/failure, or how this differs from other user-related tools. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools list, this description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the description appropriately doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already provides. The description doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist, which would have lowered the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create user' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'users_create' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('user'), but lacks any distinguishing details about what kind of user creation this performs or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_users' or 'create_user_invitations' in the sibling list. This minimal statement fails to provide specific purpose beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'create_users', 'create_user_invitations', and 'users_update', there's no indication of what differentiates this particular user creation method. The description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when other tools might be more suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic verb 'Update'. It doesn't indicate whether this operation requires specific authentication, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'Update user' is technically concise, it represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The two words fail to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal description doesn't earn its place by providing adequate guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The description fails to provide the minimum information needed for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, or what behavioral characteristics to expect. It's completely inadequate for a tool that presumably modifies user 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter situation (nonexistent), and the description doesn't create confusion about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update user' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'users_update'. It provides no additional specificity about what aspects of a user can be updated (e.g., profile, permissions, status) or the scope of the operation. While it clearly indicates a mutation operation, it lacks the detail needed to distinguish it meaningfully from other update operations in the sibling tool list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or differentiation from other user-related tools like 'users_create', 'users_get', or 'users_list' that appear in the sibling list. An agent would have no contextual clues about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update case status' implies a mutation operation but gives no behavioral details about permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or what 'status' means. The description contradicts the tool name ('create' vs 'update'), creating confusion about whether this creates or updates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words but fails to provide necessary context, making it more of an incomplete placeholder than a well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous purpose, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'case status' refers to, what values are possible, or what the operation actually does, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the 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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, though it could mention that no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update case status' restates the tool name 'create_case_status' with a different verb ('update' vs 'create'), creating confusion rather than clarifying purpose. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated or distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_case_archive', 'create_case_assign', or 'create_cases'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from related case management tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Test an existing rule' implies a read-only or validation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a safe simulation, whether it requires specific permissions, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Test an existing rule') but suffers from under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded in the sense of being a single phrase, it lacks the necessary detail to be helpful. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this minimally adequate but not efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (testing security monitoring rules), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, an agent cannot understand what this tool does, how to use it, or what to expect. The description fails to provide the minimal context needed for a tool that likely involves non-trivial operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information, and the schema fully defines the empty input structure. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter semantics are required beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test an existing rule' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_security_monitoring_rule_test' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions testing but doesn't clarify what type of rule (security monitoring), what testing involves (validation, simulation, execution?), or what resource is affected. Compared to siblings like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' or 'create_security_monitoring_rules_validations', it fails to distinguish its unique function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to security monitoring rules (e.g., 'create_security_monitoring_rules', 'create_security_monitoring_rules_validations', 'create_security_monitoring_rules_converts'), but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'delete' but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a monitor') but this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary context that would make it genuinely helpful. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needed, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address critical questions about what gets deleted, confirmation requirements, error conditions, or system behavior. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist. The baseline for 0 parameters with complete schema coverage is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a monitor' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'delete_monitor_v1'. While it indicates the action (delete) and resource (monitor), it lacks specificity about what a 'monitor' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_monitor' (without the _v1 suffix).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling deletion tools (delete_monitor, delete_monitor_v1, delete_monitor_notification_rule, delete_monitor_policy) with no indication of when this specific version should be used. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Cancel downtime' implies a destructive mutation (canceling something), but it fails to describe any behavioral aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens upon cancellation (e.g., immediate resumption of monitoring), if it's reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks necessary context for a mutation tool. While front-loaded, it fails to provide any useful information beyond the name, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is highly incomplete. The description does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without critical information on behavior, outcomes, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. Given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, this is adequate as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel downtime' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'downtimes_cancel' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'cancel' and resource 'downtime', but lacks any detail about what downtime refers to (e.g., monitoring downtime, scheduled maintenance) or scope, making it vague and minimally informative beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing downtime to cancel), differentiate from sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' or 'downtimes_list', or specify any context for invocation. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search cases' implies a read-only operation but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Search cases.'), which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it fails to provide necessary context for a tool with no annotations or output schema. While not verbose, it lacks the substance needed for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving data retrieval) and the absence of annotations, output schema, and detailed description, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'cases' are, how the search works, or what is returned, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable in this context. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search cases' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cases' without adding meaningful specificity. While it indicates the action (search) and resource (cases), it lacks detail about what 'cases' are or how the search operates, making it vague compared to what a clear purpose statement should provide.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (including other search tools like search_events, search_logs_events, etc.), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar tools, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Get dashboard by ID' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, or what format the dashboard data returns in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, every word essentially repeats the tool name without adding value. The description earns a middle score because while it's technically concise, it fails to use its limited space to provide any meaningful guidance beyond the obvious.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of dashboard systems and the complete lack of annotations, output schema, and meaningful description, this tool definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine what a 'dashboard' is in this context, how to obtain valid IDs, what data structure returns, or how this differs from other dashboard-related tools. For a retrieval tool in what appears to be a monitoring/analytics system, this minimal description provides inadequate context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate given the empty schema. While the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are needed, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema already provides (which is none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get dashboard by ID' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_dashboard_by_id' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'list_dashboards', nor does it provide any additional context about what 'dashboard' means in this system. While the verb 'Get' is clear, the description lacks the specificity needed for effective tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_dashboard', 'list_dashboards', and 'get_dashboards' available, the agent has no indication whether this tool is for retrieving a single dashboard by specific identifier, whether it requires different parameters, or what distinguishes it from other dashboard retrieval tools. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what happens if no Okta account exists, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description provides no behavioral context whatsoever.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get an Okta account') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is one short phrase), it fails to provide necessary context. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity, making this borderline between efficient and inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of integration tools and the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' means operationally, what an Okta account represents in this context, what data is returned, or how this differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely interacts with external identity systems, this minimal description provides insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an Okta account' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_integrations_okta_account'. It provides no additional specificity about what 'get' means in this context (e.g., retrieve details, list, fetch configuration) or what constitutes an 'Okta account' in this integration. While it mentions the resource (Okta account), it lacks a specific verb and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_okta_accounts' (plural).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_integrations_okta_accounts' (which likely retrieves multiple accounts) or other integration-related tools. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (especially since there's no output schema). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence ('Get a monitor by ID'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids waste, it lacks necessary elaboration for clarity and completeness, making it more sparse than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that only repeats the tool name, this is completely inadequate. The tool likely retrieves a specific monitor, but the description fails to explain what a monitor is, how to obtain the ID, or what data is returned, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter details, but with no parameters, the baseline is appropriately high as there's nothing missing. It implies an ID is needed but doesn't specify format or source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a monitor by ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'monitor' but lacks any distinguishing details about what a monitor is in this context or how this differs from other monitor-related tools like 'get_monitor', 'list_monitors', or 'search_monitors' among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'get_monitor', 'list_monitors', 'search_monitors') that might serve similar or overlapping purposes, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the response format might be. The single sentence provides zero behavioral context beyond the implied retrieval action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context needed for proper tool understanding. The single sentence structure is simple but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'powerpack' is, what information is returned, whether this retrieves a default/specific powerpack, or how it relates to other powerpack tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide the minimal context needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. However, it also doesn't add any semantic context about implicit parameters or how identification occurs (e.g., via context or default behavior), which keeps it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a powerpack' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get'), it doesn't specify what a 'powerpack' is in this domain or what specific information is retrieved. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_powerpacks' (plural), it fails to distinguish whether this retrieves a single specific powerpack versus a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, required context, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_powerpacks' (plural form) or 'update_powerpack'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what format the patterns are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. The single sentence provides no operational context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Returns all standard patterns.') but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single sentence fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (sensitive data scanner configuration patterns), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'standard patterns' are, what format they're returned in, whether there are limitations on what's returned, or how this fits into the broader sensitive data scanner configuration system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns all standard patterns' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_sensitive_data_scanner_config_standard_patterns' without adding meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what 'standard patterns' are, what resource they belong to (sensitive data scanner configuration), or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_sensitive_data_scanner_configs' or 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rules'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to sensitive data scanner configuration (including get, create, update, and delete operations), there's no indication of when this specific 'standard patterns' retrieval is appropriate versus other configuration retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what time range it covers, whether it's paginated, what format the results take, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Aggregate logs analytics') but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While technically efficient with zero wasted words, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single phrase doesn't constitute a helpful description structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. For an analytics tool that presumably returns aggregated data, the description should explain what kind of aggregation occurs, what metrics are calculated, what time periods are covered, and what the output looks like. The current description provides none of this essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already indicates (none).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Aggregate logs analytics' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb indicating what kind of aggregation operation is performed (e.g., summarize, calculate, compute) and doesn't specify what resource or data is being aggregated beyond 'logs analytics'. While it mentions 'logs', it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' which appears to be nearly identical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' (which appears to be a similar tool) or other analytics tools in the extensive sibling list. The agent receives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what format the results return. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how to use the tool safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Metrics: query timeseries'), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core concept, it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful, making it more sparse than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably returns timeseries data, the description should explain what kind of data it returns, any required context, or how it differs from similar query tools. The current description fails to provide any meaningful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what's already covered in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Metrics: query timeseries' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It mentions 'query' as a verb and 'timeseries' as a resource, but lacks specificity about what kind of metrics or timeseries data it queries. Compared to siblings like 'metrics_query_scalars' or 'query_timeseries', it doesn't clearly differentiate 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 Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools like 'metrics_query_scalars', 'query_timeseries', and various analytics aggregation tools, but the description offers no comparison or context about when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Create a notebook' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Create a notebook') but this borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single phrase fails to provide necessary context. It earns some credit for being brief but loses points for being insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what a 'notebook' is in this system, what gets created, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by the extensive sibling tool list (which includes many specialized creation operations), this description fails to provide necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for this situation is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't attempt to document non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a notebook' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it includes a verb ('Create') and resource ('notebook'), it lacks specificity about what a notebook is in this context or how this creation differs from other 'create_' tools in the sibling list. It doesn't distinguish itself from similar tools like 'create_notebooks' (plural) or other resource creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_notebooks' (which appears to be a similar tool based on naming). The agent receives zero contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implying a mutation but gives no details about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words but fails to provide necessary context. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, it's completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what a 'downtime' is, what fields can be updated, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies system state, this lack of context is highly problematic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'by `downtime_id`' which might imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add value. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a downtime by `downtime_id`' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_downtime' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'downtime' but lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the scope of changes. Compared to sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' and 'downtimes_cancel', it doesn't clearly differentiate its purpose beyond the generic update action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing downtime), exclusions, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' for new downtimes or 'downtimes_cancel' for termination. There's no context about typical use cases or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an Okta account' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Update an Okta account') but suffers from under-specification rather than true efficiency. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single sentence fails to provide necessary context. It earns a middle score because it's not verbose or poorly structured, but its brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally, what fields can be modified, what authentication is required, or what success/failure looks like. The agent cannot understand how to properly invoke this tool or interpret results based on this minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add parameter-specific information (since none exist), it appropriately describes a zero-parameter operation. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an Okta account' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_integrations_okta_account'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks any specificity about what aspects of an Okta account can be updated or what the operation entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_integrations_okta_accounts', it doesn't clearly distinguish itself beyond the generic 'update' action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Okta account), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_integrations_okta_accounts' or 'delete_integrations_okta_account'. The agent receives zero contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Updates' which implies a mutation/write operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether the update is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that's technically concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it doesn't waste words, it fails to provide essential context that would help the agent. The structure is front-loaded with the core action but leaves too much unexplained about what's being updated and how.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool ('Updates') with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'endpoint' is in this context, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool that modifies configuration, this lack of context makes it nearly unusable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description mentions `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>` which appears to be a placeholder, but since the schema indicates no parameters, this might be misleading. However, with zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 as there's nothing for the description to compensate for regarding parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates the endpoint with the name `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>`' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name ('update_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable'). It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (e.g., webhook configuration, custom variable settings) or what 'endpoint' refers to in this context. While it mentions a specific parameter placeholder, it fails to clearly articulate the tool's purpose beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., existing custom variables), related tools (like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variables' or 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable' from the sibling list), or specific scenarios where this update operation is appropriate. The agent receives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to the monitor during editing, or what the expected response format might be. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Edit the specified monitor') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context needed for a mutation tool. The single sentence doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't provide enough information to be truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what a 'monitor' is in this context, what can be edited, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by having multiple monitor-related tools and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters that require semantic explanation beyond what the empty schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit the specified monitor' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_monitor' with a synonym. It provides no specific information about what kind of monitor this is (e.g., performance, uptime, security) or what aspects can be edited. While it does include a verb ('Edit') and resource ('monitor'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_monitor_v1' or 'update_monitor_notification_rule'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple monitor-related tools in the sibling list (create_monitor, delete_monitor, get_monitor, update_monitor_v1, mute_monitor, unmute_monitor, validate_monitor_v1), but the description offers no differentiation. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Reorder' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't indicate whether this requires special permissions, whether the reordering is immediate or batched, what happens to existing configurations during reordering, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Reorder the list of groups.') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary context about what groups, why reorder them, or how the operation works. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a completely inadequate description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. The description fails to address what the tool actually does beyond the vague 'reorder' action, what the groups represent, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably modifies sensitive data scanner configurations, this level of documentation is dangerously incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. However, the description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which indicates no parameters). The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as there's nothing additional needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reorder the list of groups' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_configs' without adding meaningful specificity. While it mentions 'groups' as the resource, it doesn't clarify what type of groups these are (sensitive data scanner configuration groups) or what 'reorder' operation entails. It fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group' or 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_sensitive_data_scanner_configs' (which presumably retrieves the current ordering) or other update/create/delete operations for sensitive data scanner configurations. The agent receives no directional information about when this specific reordering operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose if this is a mutation requiring permissions, what happens on update (e.g., overwrite, merge), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks necessary details for clarity, making it more sparse than optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is highly incomplete. It fails to explain what 'team link' is, what updates are possible, or the expected behavior, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add param info, but this is acceptable given the schema completeness, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a team link.' restates the tool name 'update_team_links' with minimal variation, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what 'team link' refers to or what aspects can be updated, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_team_links' or 'delete_team_links'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_team_links' or 'delete_team_links'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Unassign case' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens to the previously assigned entity, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'Unassign case' is brief, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The description fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose and usage. A single word or short phrase doesn't earn its place when it leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'create' and 'unassign') with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results are returned. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unassign case' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_case_unassign'. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon (e.g., which case, from whom), nor does it clarify what 'create' means in this context versus other unassignment operations. While it indicates the general action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from potential alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'create_case_assign' and 'create_case_archive', but the description doesn't mention when unassignment is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or what happens after unassignment. This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List downtimes' implies a read operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate to inform the agent about how the tool behaves or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('List downtimes'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks necessary detail about scope or behavior. While front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'downtimes' are in this context, what the output format might be, or any operational constraints. For a list operation, even a basic one, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with sibling tools like 'get_downtimes' present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters to document, the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate here, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List downtimes' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'downtimes_list'. It provides no additional specificity about what 'downtimes' refers to (e.g., system downtimes, maintenance windows) or what 'list' entails (e.g., retrieve all, with filters). While it matches the verb+resource pattern, it offers no meaningful distinction from what the name already implies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_downtimes' and 'downtimes_cancel' that likely serve related but distinct purposes, but the description offers no comparison or context. It fails to indicate whether this is for read-only access, bulk retrieval, or any specific use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List events' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the events are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of just two words, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. While not verbose, the description fails to convey necessary context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's zero parameters and lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'events' means in this system, how results are returned, and how this differs from similar tools. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and appropriate usage scenarios, especially with multiple event-related siblings available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps, and 'List events' appropriately indicates this is a simple listing operation without filtering parameters. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List events' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'events_list' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('events'), but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_events' that might have different functionality. The description lacks specificity about scope, filtering, or output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_events', 'get_events', and 'events_post' available, the agent receives no indication of whether this tool is for basic listing, filtered searching, or other purposes. There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what format/details are returned. 'Get' implies retrieval but lacks any behavioral context about the operation's characteristics or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get the device details.') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's a single sentence with no wasted words, it fails to provide necessary context that would help the agent understand what 'ndm' means or what details are retrieved. Conciseness shouldn't come at the cost of essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'ndm' stands for, what constitutes 'device details', whether this retrieves a specific device or current device, or what the return format looks like. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output based solely on the vague description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools, though it doesn't add value beyond what the schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the device details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_ndm_device'. It provides a generic verb ('Get') and resource ('device details') but lacks specificity about what 'ndm' refers to or what kind of device details are retrieved. While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on devices, it doesn't clarify scope or differentiate from similar tools like 'get_ndm_devices' (plural).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_ndm_devices' (which appears to retrieve multiple devices). The agent receives zero usage instructions beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it supports pagination or filtering, or the format of returned data, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('List incidents'), which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids waste, it lacks necessary detail for a tool that likely returns multiple incidents, making it inefficient in conveying needed context beyond the bare minimum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but incomplete description, the tool is inadequately documented. For a list operation, details like return format, pagination, or filtering options are missing, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the zero-parameter simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters to explain, this is adequate, meeting the baseline for tools without inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List incidents' restates the tool name 'incidents_list' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'incidents' but lacks detail on scope, format, or differentiation from siblings like 'incidents_get' or 'incidents_create', leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'incidents_get' (likely for single incidents) and 'incidents_create', the description fails to indicate this is for listing multiple incidents, offering no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, what format they return, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the bare verb 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks any additional context that would help an agent understand what 'List notebooks' actually entails in this system.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should at minimum indicate what 'notebooks' are in this context, the scope of listing (all notebooks? user's notebooks?), and basic behavioral characteristics. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, the description avoids unnecessary complexity, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List notebooks' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'notebooks_list'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks any specificity about scope, format, or what constitutes a 'notebook' in this context. While it distinguishes from obvious non-list siblings like 'notebooks_create' or 'notebooks_delete', it doesn't differentiate from other list operations in the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many other list/search tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_dashboards', 'list_monitors', 'search_monitors', 'get_notebooks'), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action ('Update') without detailing what the update entails (e.g., whether it modifies existing data, requires specific permissions, has side effects like notifications, or returns confirmation). This leaves critical behavioral aspects like mutation impact, authentication needs, and response format unspecified, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Update a new on-call schedule', which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information, reducing its effectiveness as a standalone description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Update' entails, what data is modified, or what the outcome might be (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool without structured support, the description should provide more behavioral and contextual details to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. However, it does not clarify why there are no parameters (e.g., if the tool updates a default or pre-configured schedule), missing an opportunity to add context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but it could be higher with more explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a new on-call schedule' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'update_on_call_schedule' with minimal variation. It does not specify what aspects of the schedule are updated (e.g., shifts, participants, rotations) or clarify the resource scope, making the purpose vague. While it includes a verb ('Update') and resource ('on-call schedule'), it lacks specificity and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' or 'delete_on_call_schedule'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing schedule to update), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' for creation or 'delete_on_call_schedule' for deletion. Without any context or usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a budget' implies a destructive operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, confirmation requirements, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a simple deletion operation, this level of brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description fails to address critical questions: What happens when a budget is deleted? Is it permanent? What permissions are required? What are the consequences? The agent cannot safely use this tool based on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, the baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is appropriately set at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a budget' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'delete_cost_budget'. It provides the verb 'delete' and resource 'budget', but lacks specificity about what kind of budget (e.g., cost budget) or any distinguishing details from other delete operations. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_cost_aws_cur_config or delete_cost_gcp_uc_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or what happens after deletion. With many sibling tools that also delete various resources, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific budget deletion tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a dashboard' implies a destructive operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens to dependent resources. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with just three words. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. For such a simple tool name, this level of brevity is appropriate rather than under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. The description fails to provide critical context about permissions, irreversibility, scope, or error conditions. Given the high stakes of a delete operation and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description is woefully incomplete and inadequate for safe agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, the baseline for 0 parameters with full coverage is appropriately high since there's no parameter burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a dashboard' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'delete_dashboard_v1'. While it confirms the action (delete) and resource (dashboard), it doesn't provide any additional specificity about scope, versioning, or what distinguishes this from other delete operations. It's minimally functional but lacks meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard' or 'delete_dashboards'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard', 'delete_dashboards', and 'delete_dashboard_v1', there's no indication of which dashboard version this targets, whether it's for single vs bulk operations, or any prerequisites. The agent receives zero contextual guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral information. It doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related configurations, or provides any confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word serves a purpose (verb + object), making it efficiently front-loaded despite its inadequacy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and critical security implications (sensitive data scanner), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation, what 'rule' refers to, or any safety considerations. The context demands much more information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a given rule' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of rule (sensitive data scanner configuration rule) or what 'given' means in practice. While it includes the verb 'delete', it lacks differentiation from sibling delete tools like delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or when deletion is appropriate versus updating or creating rules. Given the sensitive nature implied by 'sensitive_data_scanner', this is a significant omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Search logs (events)' implies a read-only query operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's a real-time or historical search. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Search logs (events)') but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded but fails to provide necessary context, making it ineffective despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search operation with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'logs' or 'events' mean in this context, how results are returned, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, though the description could hint at implicit filtering if any exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search logs (events)' states the basic action (search) and target (logs/events), but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of logs, what time range, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_logs_events', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'search_events', 'get_logs_events', and 'logs_aggregate_analytics', there's no indication of when this specific search tool is appropriate, making it impossible for an agent to choose correctly without external context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send logs to intake' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, rate limits, side effects, what 'intake' refers to, whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words: 'Send logs to intake'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, though that meaning is limited. This is an example of efficient communication within the constraints of minimal content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'send' operation (likely involving data ingestion), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'intake' is, what format logs should be in, authentication requirements, or expected outcomes. For a tool that presumably performs a write operation, this level of documentation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema fully documents the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send logs to intake' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'logs_send'. It provides a verb ('Send') and resource ('logs') but lacks specificity about what 'intake' means or how this differs from other logging tools like 'logs_aggregate_analytics' or 'logs_search_events'. The purpose is vague and doesn't distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to logs (e.g., 'logs_aggregate_analytics', 'logs_search_events', 'search_logs_events'), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for ingestion, analysis, or other purposes. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('query') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (querying timeseries data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and many sibling query tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'timeseries points' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query timeseries points' states a verb ('query') and resource ('timeseries points'), but it's vague about what specific timeseries points are being queried and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'query_scalars', 'query_timeseries', 'metrics_query_timeseries', or 'search_resources'. It doesn't specify scope or constraints, making it minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for querying data (e.g., 'query_scalars', 'metrics_query_timeseries', 'search_resources'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'Create' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected response format might be. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is severely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, from a pure conciseness perspective, it's maximally efficient with every word carrying essential meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is completely inadequate given the context. With no annotations, no output schema, and being a creation/mutation tool, the description should provide much more information about behavior, requirements, and expected outcomes. The single phrase doesn't give the agent enough information to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. However, it also doesn't mention that there are no required parameters, which could be slightly helpful context. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Synthetics test' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'synthetics_create_test'. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'Synthetics test', but provides no additional detail about what a Synthetics test is or what creation entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_tests_browsers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to synthetics tests (create_synthetics_tests, create_synthetics_tests_browsers, create_synthetics_tests_mobiles, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific tool should be selected. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention if this requires admin permissions, what happens if the key doesn't exist, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but there's no additional context to structure further.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (editing application keys likely involves permissions and side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is highly incomplete. The description fails to provide necessary context about what 'edit' entails, prerequisites, or outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters. No additional parameter information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit an application key' restates the tool name 'update_application_key' with a synonym ('Edit' for 'update'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what aspects of an application key can be edited or how this differs from other update tools like 'update_current_user_application_key' or 'update_service_account_application_keys' among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_current_user_application_key' and 'update_service_account_application_keys', it's unclear whether this tool is for general application keys, requires specific permissions, or has other prerequisites. No context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or response format. As a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical safety and operational details unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though this conciseness contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, usage context, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the empty schema, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an on-call escalation policy' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'on-call escalation policy', but lacks detail on what aspects are updated or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_on_call_schedule', reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Create an AuthN Mapping.') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context that would help the agent understand what's being created. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an AuthN Mapping is, what the creation entails, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. For a tool that presumably creates security/auth-related resources, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters, though the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an AuthN Mapping' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify what an 'AuthN Mapping' is, what resource it creates, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_authn_mappings' (plural) or 'update_authn_mapping' among siblings. This provides minimal differentiation beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_authn_mappings', 'update_authn_mapping', or 'delete_authn_mapping'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific creation tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive case' implies a mutation (archiving), but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects case visibility or status, or what the expected outcome is. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Archive case'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it fails to convey necessary context. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place with meaningful content beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what archiving does, its effects, or return values. For a tool that likely changes state, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Archive case' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_case_archive' without adding meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb ('Archive') and resource ('case'), but lacks any distinguishing details about what archiving entails or how it differs from similar operations like 'create_case_unarchive' in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., case must exist, be in a specific state), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_case_unarchive' or 'create_cases'. This leaves the agent with no context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update case priority' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the case doesn't exist, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every word earns its place, but more words would be needed to make this truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how priority is determined, what the valid priority values are, or what happens after execution. The agent would be left guessing about both the input requirements and the expected outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. However, it also doesn't explain why this tool requires no parameters, which might be confusing for an agent expecting to specify which case or what priority value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update case priority' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_case_priority' with a synonym. It doesn't clarify whether this creates a new priority setting or modifies an existing one, nor does it specify what resource is being updated. The name suggests creation while the description suggests update, creating ambiguity rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternative tools, or contextual constraints. Given the sibling tools include 'create_case_status', 'create_case_assign', and 'create_cases', there's clear opportunity to differentiate usage scenarios, but none is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a Case' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral information gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Create a Case') but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it uses minimal words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand what 'Case' means in this domain. The single sentence structure is clear but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Case' is, what data might be needed for creation (despite 0 parameters suggesting maybe none), or what the tool returns. For a creation operation in a system with many case-related tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. It gets a baseline 4 because there are no parameters to explain, and the schema fully covers this absence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Case' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Case') but provides no details about what a 'Case' represents in this system or what creation entails. Compared to siblings like 'create_case_archive' or 'create_case_assign', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'create_case_archive', 'create_case_assign', and 'create_cases_projects', there is no indication of when this basic case creation tool is appropriate versus more specialized variants. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral information beyond the basic action implied by 'unarchive'. With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens if the case isn't archived. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at two words. Every word earns its place by specifying both the action and target resource. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is inadequate. While conciseness is appropriate given the simple parameter situation, the description fails to provide necessary context about what 'unarchiving' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about the tool's effects and requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The schema already fully documents that no inputs are required. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, though it could mention that the tool likely operates on a pre-selected or contextually identified case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unarchive case' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_case_unarchive'. It specifies the verb ('Unarchive') and resource ('case'), but provides no additional context about what 'unarchiving' entails or what type of case is being referenced. While it distinguishes from sibling 'create_case_archive', it lacks specificity about the operation's scope or effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a case must already be archived), when-not-to-use scenarios, or related tools like 'create_case_archive' for the opposite operation. The agent receives no contextual usage information beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a dashboard' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this creates an empty dashboard or requires configuration, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Create a dashboard') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single phrase fails to provide necessary context. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness for a tool that likely has important behavioral nuances.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (create operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets created, under what conditions, what the expected outcome is, or how it differs from other dashboard creation tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description cannot reasonably add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already indicates (no parameters required).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a dashboard' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'create_dashboard_v1'. While it indicates the verb (create) and resource (dashboard), it provides no specificity about what kind of dashboard, in what context, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_dashboards' or 'create_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards'. This minimal statement fails to differentiate the tool's purpose from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that also create dashboards (e.g., 'create_dashboards', 'create_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards'), the agent has no indication whether this is a simplified version, a specific API version, or intended for particular use cases. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Creates' which implies a write/mutation operation, but there are no annotations provided to confirm this or provide additional behavioral context. The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the creation entails. With zero annotation coverage, the description carries full burden and provides minimal behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with 5 words. While this is efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every word earns its place, but the description lacks the necessary context and detail that would make it genuinely helpful for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a monitor notification rule is, what it's used for, what the creation process entails, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that presumably creates something important in a monitoring system, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to provide parameter information, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist, which would have lowered the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a monitor notification rule' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('monitor notification rule'), but provides no additional detail about what a monitor notification rule is or what it does. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_monitor' or 'create_monitor_policies' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools, or context for when notification rules should be created versus other monitor-related operations. Given the many sibling tools in this monitoring domain, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single three-word sentence, which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide necessary context about what a powerpack is or how creation works, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (a creation operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a powerpack is, what fields might be required (though parameters are 0, context may be needed), or what the creation yields. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is justified as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a powerpack' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It provides a basic verb ('Create') and resource ('powerpack'), but fails to explain what a powerpack is or what this creation entails, leaving the purpose vague and indistinguishable from other 'create_' tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate it from other creation tools in the extensive sibling list (e.g., create_dashboards, create_monitor). This absence leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a security filter' which implies a write/mutation operation, but provides zero information about required permissions, side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief at two sentences, which could be appropriate for a simple tool. However, the first sentence is tautological and the second merely points to external documentation without providing any immediate value. While concise, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (create operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should provide more context about what gets created, how it behaves, and what to expect. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior beyond the obvious implication from the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. The external documentation link might provide parameter details, but within the description itself, no parameter information is needed or expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a security filter' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filters' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what a security filter is, what resource it creates, or how it differs from other creation tools in the sibling list. The description merely repeats the action implied by the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes many other 'create_' tools (like create_security_monitoring_rules), the description offers no comparison or context. The external documentation link doesn't compensate for missing in-description guidance about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Create a detection rule' implies a write operation but offers no details on permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or what constitutes a successful creation. It fails to describe the mutation's impact or any behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks necessary context such as what a detection rule is, expected inputs (though none are required), behavioral details, or output expectations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a detection rule' restates the tool name 'create_security_monitoring_rules' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'detection rule' but lacks detail about what a detection rule entails or its scope within security monitoring. While it distinguishes from non-creation siblings, it doesn't differentiate from similar creation tools like 'create_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rules'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., other security monitoring creation tools), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single four-word sentence, which is technically concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative - it doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('create') with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an SLO Correction is, what data might be needed (despite empty schema), what the operation returns, or any prerequisites. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the empty schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an SLO Correction' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It identifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('SLO Correction'), but lacks specificity about what an SLO Correction entails or how it differs from related tools like 'create_slos' or 'update_slo_correction'. This is a tautological restatement rather than a clear purpose definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_slos', 'update_slo_correction', and 'delete_slo_correction', there is no indication of the specific context for creating corrections versus creating SLOs themselves or modifying existing corrections. The agent receives zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Create') without mentioning permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, what happens on failure, or the format of the creation request. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to the purpose, though it lacks depth, this is a matter of completeness rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Synthetic mobile test' entails, the expected input format (e.g., JSON body), or the return value. For a mutation operation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as there is no need to compensate for missing schema information. However, it does not clarify if parameters are implied or handled differently (e.g., via request body), leaving a minor gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Synthetic mobile test' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Synthetic mobile test'), but lacks detail on what constitutes a mobile test or its scope. Compared to siblings like 'create_synthetics_tests' and 'create_synthetics_tests_browsers', it does not clearly differentiate itself beyond the 'mobile' qualifier, making it somewhat tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_synthetics_tests' (likely for general tests) and 'create_synthetics_tests_browsers' (for browser tests), the description does not indicate specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for mobile tests. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't mention whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated rules or data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a given group') but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While it's front-loaded and wastes no words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand and use the tool effectively. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what constitutes 'a given group', how groups are identified, what the deletion consequences are, or what (if anything) is returned. Given the tool's destructive nature and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully describes the empty parameter set, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a given group' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group'. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'group', but lacks specificity about what type of group (sensitive data scanner configuration group) and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule' or 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or comparison to sibling tools like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group' or 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_groups'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Get an API key' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if it returns sensitive data, what the output format is, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though the content itself is lacking in detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Get an API key' entails—such as whether it retrieves a specific key, lists keys, or generates a new one—and lacks any context about authentication, return values, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no required inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description aligns with the schema's simplicity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an API key' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of API key (e.g., current user's key, specific key by ID, or a new key), nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_api_keys' (plural) or 'create_api_keys'. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb+resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, scope (e.g., retrieving a single key vs. listing multiple keys), or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_api_keys' or 'create_api_keys'. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get all projects' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get all projects') but borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks any additional context that would help an agent understand scope or usage. The single sentence earns its place but leaves too much unsaid.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description 'Get all projects' is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'projects' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns a list of resources, more context about the response structure and any limitations would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description 'Get all projects' appropriately indicates no filtering parameters are needed, which aligns with the empty input schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description adequately conveys the parameterless nature of this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all projects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cases_projects'. It provides the verb 'Get' and resource 'projects' but lacks specificity about what 'projects' refers to in this context (e.g., case projects, monitoring projects) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_cases' or 'get_cases_project' which handle individual cases or projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools like 'get_cases', 'get_cases_project' (singular), and 'create_cases_projects' that handle related resources, but the description doesn't indicate this tool is for retrieving all projects versus filtered subsets or individual items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read operation ('Get') but does not specify whether it retrieves a single framework or multiple, what authentication is required, or any rate limits. The lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence 'Get a custom framework.', which is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action but lacks necessary elaboration, making it more sparse than helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by 'cloud security management'), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a custom framework is, what data is returned, or how it fits into the security management context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a custom framework' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'custom framework' but lacks detail on what a custom framework entails or how it differs from other frameworks, failing to distinguish from siblings like 'get_cloud_security_management_resource_filters'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Sibling tools like 'create_cloud_security_management_custom_frameworks' and 'delete_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' exist, but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a budget.' implies a read-only operation but fails to specify whether it retrieves a single budget, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Get a budget.', which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to provide essential context, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information rather than being appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool's definition is incomplete. For a read operation (implied by 'get'), the description should at least hint at what is returned or any constraints, but it does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a budget.' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cost_budget' without adding meaningful specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination that distinguishes what kind of budget or from where it's retrieved, making it vague compared to more descriptive sibling tools like 'get_cost_budgets' or 'get_cost_by_tag_active_billing_dimensions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from sibling tools such as 'get_cost_budgets' (plural) or other cost-related tools, leaving the agent without any usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List budgets' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the output format might be, if there are rate limits, or if it returns all budgets or a paginated subset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place, but the description may be too brief for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description 'List budgets' is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'budgets' refer to (e.g., cost budgets), the scope of listing, or the return format. With no annotations and a vague purpose, this leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List budgets' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cost_budgets'. While it indicates a read operation on budgets, it lacks specificity about what kind of budgets (e.g., cost budgets, project budgets) or what scope is covered. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_cost_budget' (singular) and 'update_cost_budgets', it doesn't clearly differentiate itself beyond the plural form.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_cost_budget' (singular), 'update_cost_budgets', and various other get_* tools, but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for listing all budgets, filtered budgets, or something else. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'get a deployment event', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'deployment event'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on generic phrasing ('Use this API endpoint') instead of delivering essential context. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool that likely returns deployment data. The agent lacks details on what 'deployment event' means, the return format, or any operational constraints. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Use this API endpoint to get a deployment event' restates the tool name 'get_dora_deployment' without adding specificity. It mentions 'deployment event' but doesn't clarify what a DORA deployment is, what data it returns, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_dora_failure' or 'create_dora_deployments_v2' among siblings. This is essentially a tautology with minimal added value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_dora_failure', 'create_dora_deployments_v2'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'get' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'failure event' data includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence ('Use this API endpoint to get a failure event.'), which is concise but under-specified. It wastes no words but fails to provide essential context, making it inefficient in conveying value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete. The agent lacks clarity on what 'failure event' means, how to interpret results, or any operational constraints, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Use this API endpoint to get a failure event' states a generic action ('get') and resource ('failure event'), but it's vague about what a 'failure event' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_dora_deployment' or 'create_dora_failures_v2'. It partially restates the tool name ('get_dora_failure'), leaning toward tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_dora_deployment', 'create_dora_failures_v2'), the description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'specific' means (e.g., by ID). The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary details (e.g., what defines 'specific'), making it somewhat wasteful in its brevity. It could be more structured with additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the archive, what the return value includes, or any constraints. For a tool that likely requires an identifier (implied by 'specific'), this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific archive from your organization' restates the tool name ('get_logs_config_archive') with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'archive' but lacks detail on what an archive entails (e.g., logs configuration archive) or how it's identified, making it vague. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_logs_config_archives' (plural) or 'create_logs_config_archives'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an archive ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_logs_config_archives' for listing archives or 'create_logs_config_archives' for creation. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets metadata' without specifying whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for effective use. The tool likely retrieves metadata for a specific metric, but without details on what 'metadata' includes, how to identify the metric, or behavioral traits, the agent cannot reliably invoke it. The high schema coverage for 0 parameters doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it doesn't clarify if the tool requires implicit inputs (like a metric identifier in the URL), so it's not fully compensatory but earns a baseline 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get metadata about a specific metric' restates the tool name 'get_metric' without adding specificity. It uses the verb 'get' but doesn't clarify what 'metadata' entails or how this differs from other metric-related tools like 'get_metrics_v1', 'get_metric_tags', or 'get_metric_volumes' among the siblings. This is a tautological description that provides minimal value beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v1', 'get_metric_tags', and 'estimate_metric', there's no indication of whether this tool is for single metric retrieval, what 'metadata' includes, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the schedule data takes. It mentions nothing about permissions needed, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context needed for effective tool selection. The single sentence structure is simple but fails to provide necessary operational details that would help an AI agent use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of on-call scheduling systems and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'on-call schedule' entails, whether it returns current or future schedules, if it includes team assignments or escalation policies, or what the return format looks like. With no output schema to document return values and no annotations covering behavioral aspects, the description should provide more operational context for a tool that likely returns structured scheduling 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. However, it also doesn't add any parameter-related context beyond what the empty schema indicates. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description doesn't need to explain parameters but also doesn't add value in this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an on-call schedule' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_on_call_schedule'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'on-call schedule' but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, format, or what exactly is retrieved. Compared to sibling tools like 'get_on_call_schedule_on_call' and 'get_on_call_team_on_call', it doesn't clarify how this differs from those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools containing 'on_call' in their names (get_on_call_schedule_on_call, get_on_call_team_on_call, get_on_call_team_routing_rules, create_on_call_schedules, delete_on_call_schedule, update_on_call_schedule), the description fails to indicate whether this retrieves all schedules, a specific schedule, or schedules filtered by some criteria. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'organization information' encompasses. It lacks critical context needed for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single three-word sentence, which is concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes no words but fails to convey meaningful information. It's front-loaded by default due to brevity, but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'organization information' includes, how it's returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter situation, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_org'. It provides a generic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what organization information is retrieved (e.g., details, settings, metadata) or scope (e.g., current, by ID). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_orgs' or 'get_org_config'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to organizations (e.g., 'get_orgs', 'get_org_config', 'update_org'), but the description offers no context about differences, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. This leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the rule doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate rather than 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?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but also no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the response format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a security monitoring rule retrieval tool, more context about what information is returned would be helpful despite the simple parameterless nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a rule's details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_security_monitoring_rule'. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'rule's details' but lacks specificity about what kind of rule (security monitoring) or what details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_security_monitoring_rules' (plural) or 'get_security_monitoring_rule_convert'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_rules' (which likely lists multiple rules) or 'update_security_monitoring_rule' (which modifies rules). There's no indication of when this retrieval operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a signal's details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get a signal's details.'), which could be seen as efficient, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. While it's front-loaded (the single sentence contains the entire description), it fails to provide necessary context, making this brevity detrimental rather than helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent purpose (retrieving security monitoring signal details), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the agent lacks essential information about what the tool returns, how to identify which signal to retrieve, or any behavioral constraints. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters, and the description doesn't contradict this (though it also doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a signal's details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_security_monitoring_signal' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of signal (security monitoring signal) or what details are retrieved, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_signals' (plural) or 'search_security_monitoring_signals'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or differentiation from similar sibling tools (like 'get_security_monitoring_signals' for multiple signals or 'search_security_monitoring_signals' for filtered searches). The agent receives no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format looks like, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the batch doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) but borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the necessary detail to be genuinely helpful. The single sentence structure is simple but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'synthetics_ci_batch' (likely involving CI/CD synthetic testing batches), the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, an agent cannot understand what this tool actually returns or how to use it effectively. The description should explain what constitutes a 'batch' and what 'updated details' include.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, though the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a batch's updated details' is vague and tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_synthetics_ci_batch' without specifying what a 'batch' is or what 'updated details' include. While it indicates a retrieval operation, it lacks specificity about the resource domain (synthetics CI) and doesn't distinguish this tool from other get_* tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous other get_* tools in the sibling list (including get_synthetics_test_results_v1, get_synthetics_tests, etc.), but no indication of when this specific batch retrieval tool is appropriate versus other synthetics-related retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if muting is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects alerting systems, or has side effects like stopping notifications. The single phrase offers no operational context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information (e.g., what 'mute' means operationally) and wastes no words but fails to provide necessary context, making brevity detrimental to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by 'mute'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the muting effect, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that likely alters system state, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mute a monitor' clearly states the verb ('mute') and resource ('monitor'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'mute' entails (e.g., silencing alerts, pausing notifications) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'unmute_monitor_v1' or 'mute_host', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing monitor), exclusions (e.g., cannot mute already muted monitors), or sibling tools like 'unmute_monitor_v1' for reversal, leaving the agent with no contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a Synthetics test' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the response format might be, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While it's under-specified, every word earns its place: 'Get' indicates the action, 'Synthetics' specifies the domain, and 'test' identifies the resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tool ecosystem (multiple synthetics-related tools) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'get' means operationally, how it differs from similar tools, or what the agent should expect in return. For a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured metadata, this description leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. However, it also doesn't explain why there are no parameters (e.g., does it get all tests? use default context?), which keeps it from a perfect score. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Synthetics test' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'synthetics_get_test' without adding meaningful clarification. It doesn't specify what 'get' means (retrieve details? fetch results? list?), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'synthetics_list_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests'. The purpose remains vague beyond the obvious verb-noun pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'synthetics_list_tests', 'get_synthetics_tests', 'search_synthetics_tests', and 'synthetics_get_test_results_v1', there's no indication of whether this tool retrieves a single test by ID, lists all tests, or performs some other operation. The agent receives no 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 but offers minimal information. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, what happens to existing key usage, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Update an API key') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context needed for a mutation tool. The single sentence doesn't waste words but fails to provide adequate guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, side effects, error conditions, and what constitutes a successful update. The current description provides only the most basic functional statement without the context needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps, making a baseline score of 4 appropriate for this zero-parameter scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an API key' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks any detail about what aspects of an API key can be updated (e.g., name, permissions, expiration) or how this differs from related operations like creating or deleting API keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing API key to update), when this operation is appropriate versus creating a new key, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_api_keys' and 'delete_api_key' that appear in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what gets updated (settings, configuration, status), whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Update a Cloudflare account.') but borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it uses minimal words, it fails to provide essential context that would help the agent understand what this tool actually does beyond the obvious.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by updating an integration account, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. No additional parameter information is required or expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a Cloudflare account' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_integrations_cloudflare_account'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what aspects of the account can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_integrations_cloudflare_accounts' or 'delete_integrations_cloudflare_account'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications about prerequisites, required permissions, or appropriate contexts for updating versus creating/deleting Cloudflare accounts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool validates a monitor but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, what validation criteria are used, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise but under-specified, failing to provide necessary context. While it avoids waste, it lacks front-loaded critical information, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is inadequately documented. The description does not explain what validation means, what happens on success/failure, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema completeness. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Validate the monitor provided in the request' restates the tool name 'validate_monitor_v1_2' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'validate' and resource 'monitor' but lacks detail on what validation entails or distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_monitor_v1' or 'validate_resources'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Sibling tools like 'validate_monitor_v1' and 'validate_resources' exist without differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 'get a list,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'deployment events' entail. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified given the tool's likely complexity, but it earns a high score for conciseness as it avoids redundancy and is structurally clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests creation but description suggests retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and lack of behavioral details, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role, especially with sibling tools present, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Use this API endpoint to get a list of deployment events,' which is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_dora_deployments_v2_2' without clarifying the actual purpose. The name suggests creation, but the description describes retrieval, creating confusion rather than providing a clear verb+resource distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_dora_deployment', 'create_dora_deployments_v2'), there is no differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create an API key,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether the key is immediately active, or what the response includes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., key value, permissions), any side effects, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an API key' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'API key' but lacks detail on what type of API key or for what system, which is insufficient for clear differentiation from siblings like 'create_application_keys' or 'create_current_user_application_keys'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_application_keys' and 'create_current_user_application_keys', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Update case attributes' implies a mutation operation, but it does not specify what 'update' entails—whether it modifies existing attributes, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. The description lacks critical behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient information about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase: 'Update case attributes'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's action, though it lacks depth, the structure is optimal for its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'update' (a mutation operation), the absence of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'case attributes' are, how the update works, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate given the absence of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is assigned because no parameters exist, and the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update case attributes' restates the tool name 'create_case_attributes' with a slight variation (using 'Update' instead of 'create'), making it somewhat tautological. It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('case attributes'), but does not clarify what 'case attributes' are or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_case_priority' or 'create_case_status', leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when it should be applied, or how it relates to other case-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_case_priority', 'create_case_status'). This absence of usage instructions makes it misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Schedule a downtime' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a scheduling tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'downtime' means, what gets scheduled, the expected outcome, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, warranting a baseline score above 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Schedule a downtime' restates the tool name 'create_downtimes' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what resource is being scheduled or what 'downtime' entails in this context, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' or 'downtimes_cancel'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'downtimes_create' and 'downtimes_cancel' present, it fails to differentiate usage scenarios, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (only schema structure details) and don't provide behavioral hints like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is a mutating operation, rate limits, or what happens upon creation. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though its brevity contributes to other deficiencies like lack of clarity and guidelines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (creating an account integration), the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and annotations don't cover behavioral aspects. The description fails to explain what 'Confluent account' means, what the tool returns, or any side effects. For a creation tool, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for this scenario. No additional value is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Confluent account' restates the tool name (create_integrations_confluent_cloud_accounts) without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'Confluent account' entails, what resources it creates, or how it differs from similar tools like create_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for creating various integrations (e.g., create_integrations_cloudflare_accounts, create_integrations_okta_accounts), but no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal and do not provide hints like readOnly or destructive, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Creates', implying a write operation, which is consistent with the 'create_' prefix. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description adds little beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on a placeholder without explaining the tool's purpose or context. While not verbose, it fails to use its brevity to convey useful information beyond the obvious.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving webhooks, configurations, and custom variables), the description is inadequate. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description does not explain what the endpoint is for, how it integrates, or what it returns. For a creation tool in a rich ecosystem, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>` as a placeholder, which might hint at a required input, but since the schema indicates no parameters, this is confusing but not penalized heavily. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates an endpoint with the name `<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>`' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variables' without clarifying what the endpoint does, what resource it creates, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks'. It mentions a placeholder but lacks specificity about the verb and resource context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks'), leaving the agent with no information to make an informed choice among similar creation tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Creates', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Creates'), though it could be more informative. Every word earns its place, but the brevity may contribute to underspecification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool for webhooks), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the endpoint does, how it integrates, or what the return value is. For a tool that likely involves configuration and mutation, more context is needed to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions '<WEBHOOK_NAME>' as a placeholder, implying a parameter, but doesn't specify its type or constraints. Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description adds some semantic hint (a name for the endpoint), though it's incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates an endpoint with the name <WEBHOOK_NAME>' states a verb ('Creates') and resource ('endpoint'), but it's vague about what type of endpoint and lacks specificity. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variables' or other webhook-related tools, and the placeholder <WEBHOOK_NAME> is unexplained, making the purpose somewhat unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when configuring webhooks for integrations), or any exclusions. With many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Validate' implies a read-only or check operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this performs a dry-run, returns validation errors, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., caching). The description lacks behavioral details needed for safe and effective use in a zero-annotation context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests validation (potentially complex logic), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what validation means, what the output might be (e.g., success/failure, error details), or how it fits into the workflow. For a validation tool in a security monitoring context, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty object), so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the schema already provides complete information. No compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Validate a suppression rule' restates the tool name (which contains 'validations') without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what validation entails (e.g., syntax check, compliance verification, pre-creation validation) or what resource is being validated beyond the generic 'suppression rule.' This is essentially a tautology that provides minimal additional insight beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' and 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_rules', it's unclear whether this validation is a prerequisite, a standalone check, or serves a different purpose. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. 'Trigger' implies a write/mutation action, but it doesn't clarify side effects (e.g., whether this starts test executions, consumes resources, or affects monitoring). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or response format. The description is too vague to guide safe or effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Trigger'), though it lacks depth. For its brevity, it efficiently states the tool's intent without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'trigger' action (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is inadequate. The description doesn't explain what happens after triggering (e.g., test results, status updates), error conditions, or integration context. For a tool that presumably initiates synthetic tests, more operational details are needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Trigger a set of Synthetic tests' restates the tool name ('create_synthetics_tests_triggers') without adding specificity. It lacks details about what 'trigger' means operationally (e.g., immediate execution, scheduling, batch processing) or what 'Synthetic tests' refer to (e.g., monitoring checks, performance tests). Compared to siblings like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_tests_trigger_cis', it doesn't distinguish its scope or mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing tests to trigger), timing considerations (e.g., ad-hoc vs. scheduled), or differentiate from similar tools like 'create_synthetics_tests_trigger_cis'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Schedule downtime' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether scheduling is immediate or future-dated, what happens to existing downtimes, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Schedule downtime', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It directly states the action and resource without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (creating/scheduling downtime) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what downtime entails, the expected outcome, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Schedule downtime' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'downtimes_create'. While it indicates the action (schedule) and resource (downtime), it lacks specificity about what downtime means in this context (e.g., monitoring downtime, maintenance windows) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'downtimes_cancel' or 'downtimes_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'downtimes_cancel' and 'downtimes_list', but the description doesn't mention when to create vs. cancel or list downtimes, nor does it specify any prerequisites, context, or constraints for scheduling downtime.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a dashboard using the specified ID,' which implies a read-only operation but does not clarify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the return includes (e.g., JSON structure, status codes). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it misses critical operational details an agent needs for reliable invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a dashboard using the specified ID.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It hints at an ID parameter not in the schema, lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases), and does not address sibling differentiation. For even a basic retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively, especially without annotations to fill in safety or operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'using the specified ID,' which implies a parameter (likely an ID) is needed, but this is not reflected in the schema. Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adds some semantic hint about an ID, though it contradicts the empty schema, indicating potential inconsistency rather than compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a dashboard using the specified ID' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_dashboard' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'dashboard', but lacks any distinguishing details about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, fetch data, or return full configuration) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_by_id' or 'list_dashboards', making it vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a dashboard ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_dashboard_by_id' (which may have similar functionality) or 'list_dashboards' (for broader retrieval). This absence of context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description does not specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but limited by its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'custom framework' entails, what updates are possible, or behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics for this parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a custom framework' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'custom framework' but lacks details about what a 'custom framework' is or what aspects can be updated, making it vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'create_cloud_security_management_custom_frameworks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing framework to update), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_cloud_security_management_custom_frameworks' or 'delete_cloud_security_management_custom_framework', leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary elaboration. Every word ('Update a powerpack') directly states the tool's purpose without waste, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a powerpack is, what the update entails, or what the response looks like. For context, sibling tools like create_powerpacks and delete_powerpack suggest this is part of a CRUD set, but the description doesn't leverage this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a powerpack' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what a powerpack is, what fields can be updated, or what the update operation entails. While it includes the verb 'update' and resource 'powerpack', it lacks any distinguishing details from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing powerpack), differentiate from similar update operations on other resources, or indicate when not to use it. With many sibling tools including create_powerpacks and delete_powerpack, this gap is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Create') without any details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for the minimal information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a creation operation with no parameters but likely significant backend behavior), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to supplement it, and the description lacks details on what a 'Synthetic API test' entails, how it's configured, or what the result looks like. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for this scenario. No additional value is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Synthetic API test' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Synthetic API test'), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_tests_browsers' or 'create_synthetics_tests_mobiles', leaving ambiguity about what specific type of synthetic test is created. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for creating different types of synthetic tests (e.g., browsers, mobiles, uptimes), there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Delete an Okta account.' It's front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'Okta account' refers to in this system, what the deletion entails, or what the response might be. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema fully covers the (nonexistent) parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an Okta account' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (Okta account), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other delete operations in the sibling list (like delete_integration_aws or delete_user), nor does it specify what constitutes an 'Okta account' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Okta account), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., if the account is in use). Given the destructive nature implied by 'delete', this lack of guidance is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns, permissions, irreversible consequences, or differentiation from alternatives. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly and safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 since no parameters exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete the specified monitor' states the action (delete) and resource (monitor), making the purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'specified' means since there are no parameters, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_monitor_v1 or delete_monitor_policy, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like delete_monitor_v1, can_delete_monitors, and list_monitors, there's no indication of prerequisites, permissions needed, or when this specific deletion method is appropriate versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Get an on-call escalation policy' implies a read-only operation but does not specify whether it requires authentication, returns a single policy or a list, includes pagination, or handles errors. It lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use, such as rate limits or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get an on-call escalation policy'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, adhering to best practices for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieval method, return format, or error handling), leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what results to expect. This inadequacy hinders the agent's ability to use the 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it does not clarify if parameters are implied (e.g., an ID to fetch a specific policy) or if it retrieves all policies by default, leaving a minor gap in semantic clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an on-call escalation policy' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'on-call escalation policy', providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve a single policy, list all policies, or fetch by ID) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_on_call_schedule' or 'create_on_call_escalation_policies', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from sibling tools such as 'create_on_call_escalation_policies' or 'update_on_call_escalation_policy'. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read/write operation, authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens upon submission. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Submit metrics (v2 series)') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete. The agent lacks information about what 'v2 series' entails, the submission format, success/failure behavior, or how it differs from similar tools. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline is high due to no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Submit metrics (v2 series)' states a verb ('Submit') and resource ('metrics'), but is vague about what 'v2 series' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'submit_series' or 'submit_distribution_points'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_series', 'submit_distribution_points', or other metric-related tools. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a notebook' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation (a mutation), the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, or the expected outcome. While the empty parameter schema simplifies input, the lack of behavioral and output context leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters. No additional value is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a notebook' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('notebook'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's quite generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_notebook' (which appears in the list) or specify what aspects of a notebook can be updated. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'notebooks_create', 'notebooks_delete', or 'notebooks_get'. Without any usage context, an agent would struggle to apply it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated resources. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for an agent to parse while still conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description. The description fails to address critical context: what type of app is being deleted (definition, deployment, instance?), whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity and risk of a delete operation, this is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter semantics burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a single app' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (app), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'delete_app_builder_apps' (plural) or 'delete_app_builder_app_deployment', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'delete_app_builder_apps' (plural) and 'delete_app_builder_app_deployment' available, there's no indication of whether this tool deletes app definitions, deployments, or something else, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose required permissions, whether this creates a new integration or links an existing account, what data is needed, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of account creation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'creating a Cloudflare account' entails in this system, what data might be returned, or any behavioral expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Cloudflare account' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Cloudflare account), but it's vague about what constitutes a Cloudflare account in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_azure', leaving ambiguity about integration scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for creating various integrations and accounts, there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or differentiation from similar tools like 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' or 'create_integrations_okta_accounts'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Fastly service' is, the expected outcome, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Fastly service for an account' states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('Fastly service'), but it's vague about what a 'Fastly service' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' or 'update_integrations_fastly_account_services'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' for account creation or 'update_integrations_fastly_account_services' for modifications, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clone' implies a write operation that creates a new role based on an existing one, but the description doesn't specify what gets cloned (permissions, users, settings?), whether authentication is required, what happens if the source role doesn't exist, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'clone') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what exactly gets cloned, how the source role is identified, what permissions are required, or what the result looks like. For a tool that likely creates new resources, this lack of detail is problematic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation. However, it doesn't explain why there are no parameters (e.g., whether the role to clone is inferred from context or requires prior setup), which slightly limits its helpfulness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clone an existing role' clearly states the verb ('clone') and resource ('an existing role'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_roles' or 'update_role', leaving ambiguity about when to use cloning versus creating a new role from scratch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_roles' (create new roles) and 'update_role' (modify existing roles), there's no indication of when cloning is preferred over creating a fresh role or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., needing an existing role to clone).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary detail, making it efficient yet incomplete. While not verbose, it fails to provide sufficient context, reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving security monitoring and rule suppressions), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to supplement it, and the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or operational constraints. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get the list of suppressions that would affect a rule'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'list of suppressions', but lacks detail on what 'affect a rule' means or the scope of the operation. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' or 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions', leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output looks like. It's minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'create' operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Synthetic browser test is, what data it expects (implied by lack of parameters), or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool, this leaves too many gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Synthetic browser test' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Synthetic browser test), but it's vague about what specifically constitutes a 'Synthetic browser test' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_tests_mobiles'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools with similar 'create' prefixes (e.g., create_synthetics_tests, create_synthetics_tests_mobiles), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or distinctions between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Unregister' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what 'unregister' entails (e.g., permanent vs. temporary), authorization requirements, side effects, or confirmation of success. For a destructive operation, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies this is a simple operation without requiring additional inputs. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description aligns with the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unregister an App Key' clearly states the action (unregister) and resource (App Key), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'App Key' refers to in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_actions_connection' or 'update_actions_app_key_registration', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related sibling tools like 'get_actions_app_key_registration', 'update_actions_app_key_registration', and 'delete_actions_connection', but the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions, or distinctions between these operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Delete an API key' which implies a destructive mutation operation, but provides no behavioral context beyond this. With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical information like whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits/constraints. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is severely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation, what type of API key is targeted, or any error conditions. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for safe and correct usage of a potentially dangerous operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation (none required). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies this is a simple operation without input parameters beyond perhaps implicit context. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an API key' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (API key), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (like delete_application_key, delete_current_user_application_key, etc.), which would require specifying what type of API key this targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar delete operations on different resources, there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this specific API key deletion tool is appropriate versus other key management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('enable'). It doesn't disclose whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and states the core action directly. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool likely performs a mutation (enabling something), the absence of annotations, output schema, and minimal description leaves significant gaps. The description doesn't explain what 'embed' refers to, what enabling entails, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool with zero structured context, this description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable a specified embed' states the action (enable) and target (a specified embed), but is vague about what an 'embed' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_graph_embeds' or 'get_graph_embed'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing embed to enable), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_graph_embeds' (for creation) or 'get_graph_embed_revoke' (for disabling/revoking).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: 'When a snapshot is created, there is some delay before it is available,' indicating an asynchronous creation process with latency. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read or write operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'graph' refers to. The disclosure is partial but adds some value beyond the bare name.
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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first states the action, and the second provides a critical behavioral note. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, though slightly terse given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent complexity (creating graph snapshots with asynchronous behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context: what 'graph' means, the snapshot's purpose, output format, error conditions, and whether this is a read or write operation. The note about delay is helpful but insufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter gaps. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's action and behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Take graph snapshots' restates the tool name 'get_graph_snapshots' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses 'take' as a vague verb that doesn't clarify whether this creates, retrieves, or triggers snapshots. No resource context or scope is provided to distinguish it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about delay after creation hints at a creation action but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare to other snapshot-related tools (none visible in siblings). This leaves the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns a list based on a search query, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what constitutes a 'search query.' The reference to a POST endpoint adds confusion about HTTP methods without clarifying behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences but includes unnecessary information about a 'POST endpoint' that doesn't directly clarify this tool's purpose. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core function, but the second sentence adds confusion rather than value. It could be more concise by focusing solely on this tool's behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of security monitoring tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what security signals are, how the search query works, return format, pagination, or error handling. The mention of a POST endpoint is tangential and doesn't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable in this case. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to explain, and the description doesn't contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'returns security signals that match a search query', which provides a basic verb+resource. However, it's vague about what 'security signals' are and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_security_monitoring_signals' or 'get_security_monitoring_signal' (singular). The mention of a 'POST endpoint' adds confusion rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that 'Both this endpoint and the POST endpoint can be used interchangeably when listing security signals,' which provides some context about alternative methods. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus other sibling tools (e.g., search_security_monitoring_signals) or clarify the 'search query' aspect. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get incident by ID' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or the format of returned data. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words. For a simple retrieval tool, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. While concise, it fails to provide necessary context about what an 'incident' represents in this system, what data is returned, or any behavioral expectations. For a tool that presumably returns structured incident data, more context would be helpful despite the simple parameterless interface.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get incident by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('incident'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'incidents_list' or 'incidents_create'. It specifies 'by ID' which adds some specificity, but doesn't clarify what constitutes an incident in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'incidents_list' (for listing incidents) and 'incidents_create' (for creating incidents), there's no indication of when retrieval by ID is appropriate versus other incident-related operations. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering criteria, return format, or limitations), making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for Synthetic tests and Test Suites' states the action (search) and target resources (Synthetic tests and Test Suites), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about scope or criteria (e.g., by name, status, or date), and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'synthetics_list_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests', making it vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to reference any sibling tools (e.g., 'synthetics_list_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests') for comparison, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states 'Get SLO by ID', offering no behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get SLO by ID')—just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as what an SLO is, the return format, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool in a complex domain (SLOs), this minimal description fails to provide enough information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get SLO by ID' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('SLO'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'slos_list' or 'search_slos' by specifying 'by ID', but lacks specificity on the scope or format of the returned data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'slos_list', 'search_slos', and 'get_slo_history', but the description doesn't mention these or clarify that this tool is for fetching a single SLO when you have its ID, unlike list/search tools for multiple SLOs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') without detailing whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or if there are rate limits or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns a list of resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like usage guidelines and behavioral transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing resources (which often involves pagination, filtering, or sorting), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context about how the listing works, what is returned, or how it differs from similar tools, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate given the empty schema. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this does not create a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Synthetics tests' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Synthetics tests'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all tests, filtered, paginated) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_synthetics_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests', which could serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_synthetics_tests' and 'get_synthetics_tests' available, there is no indication of differences in functionality, filtering capabilities, or appropriate contexts for use, leaving the agent without necessary decision-making information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. While concise, it fails to provide essential context about what 'Update' entails operationally, how to identify which test to update, what fields can be modified, or what happens after invocation. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter details since there are none, which is appropriate. With no parameters to document, the baseline score is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a Synthetics test' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Synthetics test'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile', which appear to be more specific update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for updating synthetics tests (e.g., update_synthetics_tests_browser, update_synthetics_tests_mobile, update_synthetics_test_v1), there's no indication whether this is a generic update tool or has specific scope. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Register' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (register implies creation) with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'App Key' is, what registration entails, or what the tool returns. For a write operation, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, this meets expectations, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Register a new App Key' clearly states the action (register) and resource (App Key), but it's vague about what 'App Key' refers to and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_api_keys' or 'create_application_keys'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'create_api_keys' and 'create_application_keys' that might serve similar purposes, there's no indication of when this specific registration is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other key creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing configurations, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'monitor configuration policy' entails, how it differs from other monitor-related tools, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation. However, it doesn't add any parameter-related context beyond what the empty schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a monitor configuration policy' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a monitor configuration policy'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be edited and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'update_monitor_v1', which appear to serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'update_monitor', 'update_monitor_v1', 'update_monitor_notification_rule'), but the description doesn't clarify the scope, prerequisites, or differentiation between them, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a mutation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a notebook'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (an update operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what data is returned, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'using the specified ID', which implies an ID parameter, but since the schema shows no parameters, this is contradictory or misleading. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is high as there's little to explain, though the mention of an unspecified ID is confusing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a notebook'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what aspects can be updated (e.g., content, metadata, settings) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'notebooks_update' or 'update_synthetics_test_v1'. It merely restates the tool name with minimal elaboration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a notebook ID), context (e.g., after creation), or exclusions (e.g., not for deleting). With many sibling tools (e.g., 'notebooks_update', 'update_dashboard'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing.
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 tool validates a monitor and adds a note about log monitors requiring an unscoped App Key, which offers some context on authentication needs. However, it lacks details on what validation entails (e.g., read-only vs. side effects), error handling, or rate limits, making it partially transparent but incomplete for a validation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: a main statement and a note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the note adds relevant context without redundancy. However, the first sentence is overly simplistic and could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what validation means, what the output might be (e.g., success/failure, error details), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'validate_monitor_v1_2'. The note adds some context but does not compensate for the overall lack of completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Validate the monitor provided in the request' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'validate_monitor_v1', offering no additional specificity. It does not clarify what validation entails (e.g., syntax, configuration, permissions) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'validate_monitor_v1_2', making it vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'validate_monitor_v1_2' or other validation-related tools. The note about log monitors requiring an unscoped App Key hints at a specific context but does not define general usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions aggregation and computation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or affects data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an analytics tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what events are aggregated (e.g., log events), the format of results, or how it differs from other aggregation tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool aggregates events into buckets and computes metrics and timeseries, which clarifies the verb (aggregate/compute) and resource (events). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling aggregation tools like aggregate_ci_pipelines_analytics or aggregate_rum_analytics, leaving the specific scope (logs) implied but not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling aggregation tools present, the agent lacks direction on selecting this specific logs analytics tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Assign' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the case is already assigned, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'case' refers to, what 'user' means, the expected outcome, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema completeness, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Assign case to a user' clearly states the verb ('assign') and resource ('case'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'case' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_case_unassign' or 'create_cases', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_case_unassign' or 'create_cases', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permissions needed, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The query modifier guidance is useful but doesn't cover core behavioral aspects of a creation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides specific guidance about query modifiers with a documentation link. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the query modifier guidance more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't help the agent understand when to use this versus other dashboard creation tools, what permissions are required, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The query modifier guidance is helpful but insufficient for the overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by mentioning 'specified options' (impiring some configuration is needed) and providing guidance about query modifiers for dashboard widgets, which gives context about what might be included in those options beyond what the empty schema indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a dashboard using the specified options', which clearly indicates the verb (create) and resource (dashboard). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_v1', 'create_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards', or 'create_dashboard_publics', leaving the agent uncertain about which tool to use for different dashboard creation scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple dashboard creation tools in the sibling list (create_dashboard_v1, create_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards, create_dashboard_publics, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different use cases. The documentation link about query modifiers is helpful but doesn't address tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'providing data,' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured into two parts: a purpose statement and a bulleted list of supported metrics. It avoids unnecessary details, but the first sentence could be more direct (e.g., 'Submit deployment data for DORA metrics'). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by DORA metrics integration) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data format to provide, how deployments are defined, or what happens after submission. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter details are needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is used to 'provide data about deployments for DORA metrics,' which clarifies its purpose as a data submission tool for DORA metrics. However, it doesn't specify the exact action (e.g., create, submit, or upload) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_dora_deployments_v2_2' or 'create_dora_failures_v2,' making it vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists the DORA metrics this tool supports (Deployment Frequency, Change Lead Time, Change Failure Rate), which implies usage contexts. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other DORA-related tools), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets a list' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what format the list returns, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that states the core purpose. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool with no parameters. However, the potential contradiction between 'create' in the name and 'get' in the description suggests some structural issue that could be clarified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying context) but also has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'failure event' in the DORA context, what the return format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns data, more context about the response would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter information since there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'to get a list of failure events', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_dora_failure' or other failure-related tools, and the name 'create_dora_failures_v2_2' suggests a creation operation while the description describes a retrieval operation, creating some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools that appear to handle DORA metrics and failures (like 'create_dora_failures_v2', 'get_dora_failure'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool should be used or what differentiates it from those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'post events' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the three capabilities (tagging, priority, aggregation) more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'event', what 'stream' refers to, what format events should be in, what happens after posting, or what the tool returns. The sibling tools include multiple event-related tools, making this lack of differentiation particularly problematic.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, though it does mention capabilities like tagging, priority setting, and aggregation which could be relevant to how events are structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'allows you to post events to the stream' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'events' and 'stream' refer to in this context, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'events_post' or 'search_events' that might handle similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions tagging, priority setting, and aggregation capabilities, which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from other event-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence 'Create an archive in your organization', which is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's under-specified given the tool's likely complexity (creating a logs configuration archive), so it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests complexity (logs config archives), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an archive entails, how it's used, or what the result looks like. For a mutation tool in a logs configuration context, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an archive in your organization' states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('archive'), but it's vague about what type of archive (logs configuration archive based on tool name) and lacks specificity about the scope or purpose. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_logs_config_archive_readers' or 'create_logs_config_custom_destinations', which are related but different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_archives' for related operations. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is too minimal to offer meaningful transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence: 'Create a notebook using the specified options.' It's front-loaded with the action and resource, and there's no wasted verbiage. However, it could be more precise (e.g., clarifying 'notebook' context), but it's efficiently structured for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with no parameters but likely side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a notebook is, what 'options' might be (even if none in schema), or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero structured support, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (since there are none), so the baseline is high. The description mentions 'specified options', which could imply parameters, but since none exist, this doesn't add or detract value. It adequately aligns with the schema's emptiness, though the phrase 'specified options' is slightly misleading given no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a notebook using the specified options' states the action (create) and resource (notebook), but it's vague about what a 'notebook' is in this context and what 'specified options' entail. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'notebooks_create' or 'create_notebook' (if present), though the name itself is clear. This is a minimal viable description that conveys the basic purpose without specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'notebooks_create' and 'get_notebooks' that suggest overlapping functionality, but the description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over others. It lacks any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a metric and returns the object, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy. However, the second sentence could be more concise by integrating return info into the first, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the metric object contains, how it's used, potential side effects, or error scenarios. For a tool that likely involves configuration changes, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it could hint at implicit inputs (e.g., request body), but given zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Create[s] a metric based on your organization's RUM data,' which provides a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('metric'), but it lacks specificity about what kind of metric (e.g., custom, aggregated) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_apm_config_metrics' or 'create_logs_config_metrics.' This makes it vague in distinguishing its exact purpose within the broader context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing RUM data), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'aggregate_rum_analytics' or 'create_rum_applications.' This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the site restriction but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'create'), potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the vague term 'agent rule' and lack of structural clarity (e.g., bullet points) slightly reduce effectiveness. Overall, it's efficient but could be more precise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context like what an agent rule is, expected outcomes, error scenarios, and how it fits with siblings. The site restriction is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool in a crowded namespace.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description references 'given parameters' but doesn't elaborate, which is acceptable since no parameters exist. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Create a new agent rule with the given parameters,' which clearly indicates a creation action. However, it's vague about what an 'agent rule' is and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' or 'create_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rules,' missing specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a note restricting usage to the Government (US1-FED) site, which is a contextual constraint. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other create_* tools for security monitoring), leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the site restriction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could potentially be more informative given the lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an SLO object is, what fields it might contain, how it differs from related tools, or what the creation process entails. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. The baseline for this situation is 4 since no parameter documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a service level objective object' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('service level objective object'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly an SLO object entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'slos_create' or 'create_slo_corrections' that appear in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'slos_create', 'create_slo_corrections', and 'create_slo_bulk_deletes' that appear related, there's no indication of when this specific 'create_slos' tool is appropriate versus those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'adds new tags' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether tags are appended or replace existing ones, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate tags. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds important optional behavior. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the host identifier requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'host' means (identifier required?), what format tags take, whether there are validation rules, what the response contains, or error conditions. Given the complexity of tag management systems, this leaves too many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds value by mentioning 'optionally specifying where these tags come from', which suggests there might be implicit or contextual parameters not in the schema. This provides useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'adds new tags to a host', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_tags_host' or 'delete_tags_host', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_tags_host' and 'delete_tags_host' available, there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus modification or deletion. The optional 'where these tags come from' hint doesn't address tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states this is a delete operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has cascading effects. It mentions the Government site restriction, which is useful context, but lacks other critical behavioral information like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'specific' agent rule. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a critical restriction. There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the restriction into the main purpose statement for better immediate understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success response, error conditions), whether there are dependencies or prerequisites, or how to identify the 'specific' agent rule to delete. The Government site restriction is valuable, but for a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more behavioral and contextual information is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to explain beyond what's already clear from the empty schema. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Delete a specific agent rule' which provides a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other delete operations in the sibling tools list (like delete_security_monitoring_rule or delete_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule), nor does it specify what makes this agent rule different from other security monitoring rules. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a single usage guideline in the note about Government site restriction, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other delete operations and related security monitoring tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this specific agent rule deletion is appropriate versus other deletion tools. The Government site note is helpful but insufficient for comprehensive 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be more informative by adding context, but within its minimal scope, it's concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context for a list operation, such as output format, pagination, or filtering hints. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter details since there are none, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as per rules, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List App Key Registrations' clearly states the action (list) and resource (App Key Registrations), but it's quite basic. It doesn't specify scope (e.g., all registrations, filtered by some criteria) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_actions_app_key_registration' (singular vs plural). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_actions_app_key_registration' (singular) and 'create_actions_connections', there's no indication of when to choose listing over fetching a specific registration or creating new ones. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('fetches'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, whether it returns a list or single object, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying 'options') to improve clarity while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete for effective use. The agent lacks details on what 'options' include, the return format, error handling, or how it differs from siblings. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns configuration data, requiring more context for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'fetches the Agentless scan options for an activated account', which provides a verb ('fetches') and resource ('Agentless scan options'), but it's vague about what 'options' entail (e.g., configuration settings, available scans). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' or 'get_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'for an activated account', but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'fetch' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'data' includes (e.g., status, results). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative. Given the lack of parameters, this conciseness is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this tool is inadequately documented. The description doesn't explain what 'on demand task' means, what data is returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a complex environment (as seen from sibling tools), this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to explain, and the description doesn't contradict or confuse this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch the data of a specific on demand task' states a verb ('fetch') and resource ('data of a specific on demand task'), but is vague about what constitutes 'on demand task' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' or 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or distinguish it from related tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws' (which might create such tasks) or other 'get_' tools in the list. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, whether it returns a single metric or details, error conditions, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence: 'Get a specific span-based metric from your organization.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying 'specific' or adding context), but it's efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'specific' means (e.g., by ID or name), what a 'span-based metric' entails, the return format, or error handling. For a tool that likely retrieves configuration data, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable as there are no parameters to explain. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get a specific span-based metric from your organization', which provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('span-based metric'), but it's vague about what 'specific' means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_apm_config_metrics' (plural) or 'aggregate_spans_analytics'. It clarifies it's for APM configuration metrics, but lacks specificity on scope or selection criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating metrics), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_apm_config_metrics' (which might list multiple) or 'aggregate_spans_analytics' (which might aggregate data). Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether it returns all configs or a subset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List'), though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks necessary context. It doesn't explain what 'Azure configs' are, the scope of listing, or behavioral aspects like safety or output, making it insufficient for reliable agent use despite low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is applied as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the Azure configs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Azure configs'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Azure configs' refers to (e.g., cost configurations, monitoring settings) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'get_cost_gcp_uc_configs' beyond the 'Azure' qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing Azure configs, or differentiate it from similar 'get_cost_*' siblings (e.g., 'get_cost_aws_cur_configs'), leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this is safe (non-destructive), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., list of objects, pagination). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'List the GCP Usage Cost configs.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'List all GCP Usage Cost configurations' to avoid ambiguity), but overall it's appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configs' are, the expected output format, or behavioral aspects like safety or permissions. For a 'get' tool in a cost management context, more context on the resource and usage would be helpful, especially with no structured fields to rely on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the GCP Usage Cost configs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GCP Usage Cost configs'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'configs' entail (e.g., settings, definitions, or metadata) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get' tools like 'get_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'get_cost_azure_uc_configs', which have similar naming patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating configs), or sibling tools like 'create_cost_gcp_uc_configs' or 'update_cost_gcp_uc_configs' for related operations. Usage is implied only by the 'get' prefix, but explicit instructions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned resource. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and does not contain unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the inputs or clarifying the resource type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving a specific resource (likely involving API calls and identifiers), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, there is no output schema to describe return values, and the description lacks details on authentication, error cases, or the nature of the 'Confluent resource'. This makes it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'resource id' and 'account ID' as required inputs, adding semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify the data types or formats for these identifiers, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get[s] a Confluent resource with the provided resource id for the account associated with the provided account ID', which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Confluent resource'), and required identifiers. However, it is vague about what a 'Confluent resource' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources_v2_2' or 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions retrieving a resource by 'resource id' and 'account ID', but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools (e.g., 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account' for account-level details). This lack of context makes it unclear when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., specifying how to identify the 'specific' destination).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on how to use it effectively, such as how to specify the destination, expected return format, or error conditions. For a retrieval tool, this is inadequate as it leaves the agent guessing about implementation details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable since there are none. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific custom destination in your organization' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'custom destination', but it's vague about what 'specific' means (e.g., by ID, name, or other identifier). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_custom_destinations' (plural), which might list multiple destinations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving a single destination by ID versus using 'get_logs_config_custom_destinations' for a list, or mention prerequisites like authentication or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the list', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence: 'Get the list of interfaces of the device.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'network interfaces') to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context about the device type, interface format, or return structure, which are essential for an agent to use it effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and contextual details to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the list of interfaces of the device' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('interfaces of the device'), but it's vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what 'device' refers to (e.g., network device, server) or what 'interfaces' entails (e.g., network interfaces, API interfaces). It also doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_ndm_device' or 'get_ndm_devices', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device identification), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_ndm_device' or 'get_ndm_devices'. Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for reliable selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'from your organization' entails (e.g., permissions). The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying 'specific'). Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'rum-based metric' is, how it's identified, what the return format looks like, or any prerequisites. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion, though it doesn't explain why no parameters are required (e.g., if context is inferred).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific rum-based metric'), but is vague about what constitutes 'specific'—it doesn't clarify if this retrieves a single metric by ID, name, or another identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aggregate_rum_analytics' by implying individual retrieval vs. aggregation, but lacks precision on the selection mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Siblings include 'get_rum_config_metrics' (plural) and 'aggregate_rum_analytics', but the description doesn't differentiate—e.g., it doesn't specify if this is for fetching configuration details vs. aggregated data or when to choose one over the other. Usage is implied only by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. The government site restriction note is useful behavioral context about availability constraints, but the description lacks other important details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing a critical usage note. Both sentences add value, and there's no redundant information. However, the purpose sentence could be more specific about what 'details' includes to be fully optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that retrieves specific resource details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to identify the 'specific agent rule' (e.g., by ID), what details are returned, or any error scenarios. The government site note is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing core information about how this read operation works.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get the details of a specific agent rule' which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'details' and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rules' (plural) which presumably lists multiple rules. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what information is 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a rule ID), comparison to sibling tools like the plural version for listing rules, or any context about typical use cases. The only guidance is a restrictive note about government site usage, which doesn't help with tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a site restriction (Government/US1-FED only), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or what format the returned list has. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a restrictive note. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security monitoring tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'agent rules' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or any prerequisites. The Government site restriction is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly doesn't attempt to do so. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get the list of agent rules' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on agent rules. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'agent rules' specifically are (cloud workload security agent rules) and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule' (singular) or 'get_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rules'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 a restrictive note about Government site usage, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rules, get_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule) with no indication of how they differ or when to choose one over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets details but does not specify if it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors (e.g., if the filter doesn't exist). The link to external docs adds some context but is not self-contained, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one linking to external docs. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the external link could be seen as a crutch for missing details, and the first sentence could be more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve configuration details for a security filter by ID').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation for a specific resource), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the filter, what details are returned, or error handling. The external link provides examples but does not compensate for the lack of self-contained information, making it inadequate for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. However, it fails to clarify how the tool identifies 'a specific security filter' (e.g., via URL path, context, or implicit means), slightly reducing clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get the details of a specific security filter', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('security filter'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include (e.g., configuration, status) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filters' (plural) or 'update_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a filter ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filters' (for listing multiple filters) or 'update_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, whether it returns a single location or list, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with minimal information, which is efficient but could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters but no output schema or annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns details, list, or status), the response format, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4 as per the rules for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Synthetic private location' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('Synthetic private location'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about scope (single vs. multiple locations) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_synthetics_locations' or 'get_synthetics_variable' that also retrieve synthetics-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and there's no reference to sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_locations' or 'delete_synthetics_private_location' for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get a specific full result,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full result' entails (e.g., format, size). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context if needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only vaguely states the purpose without behavioral details, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'full result' includes, how to identify the 'specific' result, or any operational constraints, making it inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get[s] a specific full result from a given Synthetic API test,' which provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('full result from a given Synthetic API test'). However, it's vague about what constitutes a 'specific full result' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1_2' or 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1,' leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a test ID or result ID, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1_2' or 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1,' leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what user context it operates in (current user? specified user?), whether there are rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description mentions the return format but doesn't provide details about pagination, empty results, or data freshness.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. However, the second sentence could be more clearly integrated with the first for better flow, and the description could benefit from front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a permission retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the permissions list takes, whether it includes inherited permissions, how permissions are structured, or what authentication/authorization is required. The description mentions 'associated user's roles' but doesn't clarify how this association is determined or whether the tool accepts user identification parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's no need for parameter explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a user permission set' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's somewhat vague about what exactly constitutes a 'permission set' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_permissions' or 'get_role_permissions' which appear in the sibling list. The description explains the return value ('Returns a list of the user's permissions granted by the associated user's roles') which helps clarify scope, but the purpose remains somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_permissions', 'get_role_permissions', and 'get_user' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it should be preferred. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'query' and data processing, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, using two sentences without wasted words. It could be slightly more structured but efficiently conveys key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of querying scalar values with multiple data sources and formulas, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist, no output schema is provided, and it lacks details on behavior, constraints, or examples. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the tool queries (scalar values) and its context (widgets, data sources, formulas), which is appropriate given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool queries scalar values and mentions widget types (Query Value, Table, Toplist), which provides some specificity. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'query_timeseries' or 'metrics_query_scalars' that appear to serve similar query functions, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions support for multiple data sources and processing with formulas, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar query tools in the sibling list, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions querying and processing timeseries data but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what the typical response format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'various data sources' includes. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of timeseries querying with data processing, the description is insufficiently complete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the agent lacks critical information about what this tool actually returns, how to interpret results, what data sources are supported, or what formulas/functions are available. For a potentially complex query tool, this represents significant contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'queries timeseries data across various data sources and processes the data by applying formulas and functions', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'various data sources' without naming them, and 'formulas and functions' without examples, making it somewhat vague. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on timeseries querying, but doesn't clearly differentiate from similar tools like 'query_scalars' or 'metrics_query_timeseries'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios. Given the many sibling tools (including other query tools like 'query_scalars' and 'metrics_query_timeseries'), the absence of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search and filter' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or what authentication is needed. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Search and filter your monitor groups details.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a search/filter tool with potential complexity, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, return format, or behavioral context, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but with no params, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search and filter your monitor groups details' states the verb ('search and filter') and resource ('monitor groups details'), but it's vague about what 'details' encompasses and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'search_monitors' or 'list_monitors'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_monitors', 'list_monitors', or 'get_monitors'. The description implies searching/filtering but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'search and filter' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it supports pagination, or the format of results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more specific to add value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name implies search functionality and there are no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'monitors details' includes, how filtering works, or what the return format is, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters, indicating no missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search and filter your monitors details' states the action (search/filter) and resource (monitors details), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'monitors details' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_monitors' or 'search_monitor_groups', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_monitors' or 'search_monitor_groups'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or any explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, sorting, or what the response contains. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three words that directly convey the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it omits important contextual information that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (full list? paginated? what fields?), how results are organized, or any constraints. The agent would need to invoke the tool blindly to understand its behavior, which defeats the purpose of a helpful description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Service Level Objectives' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Service Level Objectives'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_slos' or 'get_slos' that appear to serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_slos' and 'get_slos' available, there's no indication whether this is for comprehensive listing, filtered searches, or specific retrieval. The agent must guess based on naming conventions alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'post distribution data,' implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on failure (e.g., data persistence, error responses). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('post distribution data') and purpose ('graphed on Datadog's dashboards'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (implied by 'post') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, data format, or integration context, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for, and the description does not contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'allows you to post distribution data that can be graphed on Datadog's dashboards,' which provides a vague purpose. It mentions 'post distribution data' (verb+resource) but lacks specificity about what distribution data entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'submit_series' or 'metrics_submit_series' among siblings. It distinguishes from read-only siblings but not clearly from other data submission tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions graphing on dashboards, which implies usage for visualization, but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other data submission tools like 'submit_series' or 'metrics_submit_series' in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires admin permissions, what happens to existing dashboard settings, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The mention of 'specified token' hints at authentication but doesn't explain how it works.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. No wasted words or redundant information. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details about what 'update' entails for a shared dashboard.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and vague purpose, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally, what dashboard properties can be changed, what the 'token' refers to, or what the expected outcome is. The agent lacks sufficient context to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. However, it mentions 'specified token' which might imply a parameter not reflected in the schema, creating potential confusion. Given zero parameters, baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and resource ('a shared dashboard'), but is vague about what specifically gets updated. It mentions 'associated with the specified token' which adds some context but doesn't clarify what dashboard properties can be modified. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_v1'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_v1'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, required permissions, or any context about what makes a dashboard 'shared' versus regular. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's action and identifiers. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Update' and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly noting the lack of parameters or clarifying the resource context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' involves, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'resource id' and 'account ID', but since these aren't in the schema, it might be misleading. However, with zero parameters, the baseline is high as the schema fully covers the input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and target ('a Confluent resource'), but is vague about what 'update' entails—it doesn't specify which fields or settings can be modified. It mentions 'resource id' and 'account ID' as identifiers, but lacks detail on the resource type or update scope. Compared to siblings like 'update_integrations_confluent_cloud_account', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the resource focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing resources), exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'create_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources' or 'delete_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'the log-based metric object from the request body when the request is successful', which adds some behavioral context about the response. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core action ('Update a specific log-based metric'). The second sentence adds value by describing the return behavior. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., clarifying the update mechanism).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'log-based metric' entails, how to identify the specific metric, what fields can be updated, or error handling. The return statement helps, but overall, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (properties: {}, type: object), indicating parameters are likely handled via the request body. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of explicit parameters. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Update[s] a specific log-based metric from your organization' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('log-based metric'), but it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_archive' or 'update_logs_config_pipeline'. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing metric), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_logs_config_metrics' or 'delete_logs_config_metric'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update', but no explicit context or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Updates') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it's front-loaded but lacks depth, which is efficient but under-specified for a mutation tool, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, the expected behavior, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'by `rule_id`', which hints at an identifier but isn't a parameter in the schema, adding minimal context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates a monitor notification rule by `rule_id`' states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('monitor notification rule'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specific aspects are updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_monitor' or 'update_monitor_policy', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing rule_id), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'create_monitor_notification_rules' or 'delete_monitor_notification_rule', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions it returns a 'Custom Rule object when the request is successful', which adds some behavioral context about the return value. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that get straight to the point: what the tool does and what it returns. There's no unnecessary fluff or repetition. However, it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information (e.g., starting with 'Returns...' might be less optimal than leading with the update action).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (update operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return value but doesn't explain the update's scope (partial vs. full updates), success/failure conditions, or how to identify the 'specific' rule to update. For a tool that modifies security configurations (WAF rules), more context about safety and impact is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Update[s] a specific WAF custom Rule' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('WAF custom Rule'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filter' or 'update_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this particular update operation from other similar ones in the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing rule ID), when this should be used instead of create/delete operations, or what makes this tool distinct from other update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('Returns RUM retention filter objects without attributes from the request body'), which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. For a tool with 'update' in its name and zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by return details. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the first sentence could be clearer (e.g., 'Reorder' instead of 'Order').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests an update/mutation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, permissions) and doesn't explain the 'Order' action fully, leaving the agent under-informed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine, but it implies a request body is involved ('without attributes from the request body'), slightly clarifying semantics. Baseline is 4 for zero params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Order[s] RUM retention filters for a RUM application,' which provides a verb ('Order') and resource ('RUM retention filters'), but it's vague about what 'Order' means—reorder, prioritize, or sequence? It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'create_rum_application_retention_filters,' leaving ambiguity in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_rum_application_retention_filters' and 'create_rum_application_retention_filters,' the description lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering no help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's an update operation and returns the security filter object, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it's destructive to existing configurations, error conditions, or rate limits. The return statement is minimal and doesn't describe the object structure.
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 two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and follows with return information. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating behavior from output, but it's efficient given the minimal content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how to identify the 'specific' security filter, what fields can be updated, error handling, and the structure of the returned object. For a mutation tool in a security context, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though schema is empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain inputs, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't add parameter details, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update a specific security filter') which is clear but lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filters' and 'delete_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter' by focusing on updates, but doesn't clarify what makes it 'specific' versus other update tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing security filter ID), when not to use it, or point to related tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter' for retrieval. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Change'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness, warranting a baseline score above 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Change') and target ('related incidents for a security signal'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what 'change' entails (e.g., add, remove, modify) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_security_monitoring_signal_assignee' or 'update_security_monitoring_signal_state', which also modify security signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
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 reveals important constraints about non-editable relationships and error conditions when trying to edit regex attributes, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address important constraints. It's front-loaded with the basic purpose statement, though that statement is minimal. There's no wasted text, and every sentence provides specific information about tool behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description provides some important behavioral constraints but is incomplete. For an update operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, and how to identify which rule to update. The constraints about standard_pattern relationships are helpful but don't constitute complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by specifying constraints about what MUST NOT be included in the request body (standard_pattern relationship) and error conditions for regex editing attempts, which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Update a scanning rule' which is a tautology of the tool name 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule'. It doesn't specify what aspects of a scanning rule can be updated or what resource is being modified. While it mentions constraints about standard_pattern relationships, it doesn't clearly state the tool's primary function beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rules' or 'delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule'. The only usage information is a constraint about what not to include in the request body.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('update') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the SLO doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be more informative by adding context about the SLO object or update scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating an SLO (a mutation operation), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior, no output schema is provided, and the description lacks details on what can be updated, error conditions, or response format. This leaves the agent under-informed for a potentially impactful operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, but that's unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'update' and the resource 'service level objective object', which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what specific aspects can be updated (e.g., thresholds, time windows, name) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'slos_update' or 'update_slo_correction', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to SLOs (e.g., 'slos_update', 'update_slo_correction', 'create_slos', 'delete_slo'), but the description offers no context on prerequisites, distinctions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but under-specified, lacking necessary details for a mutation tool. It earns points for brevity but loses some for not being sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'SLO correction object' entails, how to specify it, what fields can be updated, or the expected outcome. For a tool in a context with many siblings, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond this, but with 0 parameters, the baseline is high as there's nothing to compensate for. It implicitly suggests an SLO correction object must be specified, but this isn't detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the specified SLO correction object' clearly states the action (update) and resource (SLO correction object), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_slo' or 'create_slo_corrections'. It provides a basic purpose but doesn't specify the scope or fields involved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing SLO correction), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_slo_corrections' or 'delete_slo_correction'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get all aggregated DNS traffic' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what time range is covered, whether results are paginated, or what format the aggregation takes. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete for understanding the tool's behavior. The description doesn't explain what 'aggregated' means, what time period is covered, what the output looks like, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably returns analytics data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the empty input structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all aggregated DNS traffic' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated DNS traffic'), but it's vague about what 'aggregated' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'aggregate_network_connections' or other analytics tools. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like aggregate_network_connections, aggregate_logs_analytics, etc.), there's no indication of when DNS traffic aggregation is appropriate versus other types of network or analytics tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create a project' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste—'Create a project'—making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though it may be overly minimal for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'Create'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what a 'project' entails, success/failure behavior, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied as it doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a project' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('project'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of project (e.g., cases project, development project) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_cases' or 'create_dashboards', leaving the scope vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools starting with 'create_' (e.g., create_cases, create_dashboards), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create or update' but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, requires permissions, affects existing data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'create or update') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'kinds' are, how they relate to other catalog entities, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update kinds in Software Catalog' clearly states the action (create/update) and resource (kinds in Software Catalog), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'kinds' are or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_catalog_entities' or 'get_catalog_kinds', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_catalog_entities' and 'get_catalog_kinds' available, there's no indication of whether this is for initial setup, bulk operations, or specific scenarios, offering minimal usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste: 'Create a custom framework.' It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a creation operation in cloud security management), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what a custom framework entails, required inputs (though none are defined in the schema), expected output (no output schema), and behavioral context. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a custom framework' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('custom framework'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'custom framework' is or its purpose, and while it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation, it lacks specificity about the framework's domain (cloud security management).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' or 'update_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an application key is, what it's used for, what the response contains, or any behavioral context. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an application key for current user' clearly states the action (create) and resource (application key), but lacks specificity about what an application key is or its purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_application_keys' by specifying 'current user', but doesn't explain why this distinction matters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_application_keys' or 'create_service_account_application_keys'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for creating a current user application key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a mutation, the description lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but fails to provide necessary behavioral context for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests a creation operation (implying mutation) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and sibling differentiation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Confluent resource' entails, the account ID context, or the outcome, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'the provided ID' as context, which aligns with the schema's empty properties but doesn't add or conflict with parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create a Confluent resource') and target ('for the account associated with the provided ID'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of Confluent resource is created or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_integrations_confluent_cloud_accounts' or 'update_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources', leaving ambiguity about its specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but provides no context about behavioral aspects, success conditions, error cases, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Fastly account' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Fastly account). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integrations_fastly_account_services' which creates services within an account, but doesn't specify what a Fastly account entails or differentiate from other integration account creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this is needed versus other Fastly tools, or any contextual constraints. With many sibling tools for creating various integrations, this lack of differentiation is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with three words, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted language, and it directly states the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (create operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'Okta account' is in this system, what the tool returns, or any side effects, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full context of use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it does not clarify if parameters are passed via other means (e.g., in the request body), leaving a minor ambiguity, but overall it aligns well with the schema's emptiness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an Okta account' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Okta account'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'Okta account' entails in this context (e.g., integration setup, user account) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'create_integrations_cloudflare_accounts', making it vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for monitoring, authentication), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'pipeline' entails, the expected outcome, or how it fits into the broader system, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a pipeline in your organization' clearly states the action (create) and resource (pipeline), but it's vague about what type of pipeline (logs configuration pipeline) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_ci_pipelines' or 'create_logs_config_archives'. It restates the tool name without adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling 'create_' tools present, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is needed for creation, what the response looks like, or any behavioral context. For a mutation tool, this minimal description leaves too many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new on-call schedule' clearly states the action (create) and resource (on-call schedule), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_on_call_escalation_policies' or specify what constitutes an 'on-call schedule' in this context, leaving it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple 'create_' sibling tools, including related ones like 'create_on_call_escalation_policies', but no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this specific creation tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Adds'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like what data is returned, error handling, or side effects, which are essential for an agent to use this tool correctly in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Adds a permission to a role' states a clear verb ('Adds') and resource ('permission to a role'), but it's vague about what kind of permission or role is involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_roles' or 'get_role_permissions', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether a role must exist first, or when to choose this over tools like 'update_role' or 'create_roles'. This omission makes it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'suppression rule' is, what it suppresses, or what the creation result looks like. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new suppression rule' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (suppression rule), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_rules' or 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_validations', leaving the scope vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the security monitoring configuration domain, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiation from similar creation tools like 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filters'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a conversion operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only transformation (likely, but not stated), if it requires specific permissions, what happens on errors, or the output format details. The phrase 'doesn't (yet) exist' suggests it might not interact with live systems, but this isn't explicitly confirmed as a safe, non-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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is somewhat front-loaded but could be clearer. It's concise but slightly awkward ('doesn't (yet) exist') and could benefit from restructuring for better readability. It avoids waste but isn't optimally structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a conversion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., Terraform HCL code), error conditions, or how the JSON should be structured. For a tool that transforms data formats, more context on input/output expectations is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (empty object), and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description implies input is a JSON rule, but since parameters aren't defined in the schema, it doesn't add semantic details beyond this implication. It's adequate given the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert a rule that doesn't (yet) exist from JSON to Terraform for datadog provider resource datadog_security_monitoring_rule.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), input format ('JSON'), output format ('Terraform'), and target resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' or 'get_security_monitoring_rule_convert', which appear to handle actual creation or retrieval of rules rather than format conversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the rule 'doesn't (yet) exist,' hinting at a pre-creation conversion scenario, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' (for creating rules directly) or 'get_security_monitoring_rule_convert' (which might convert existing rules). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Validate') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only check, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns validation results, which is inadequate for a tool that likely performs analysis without mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though conciseness doesn't compensate for lack of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what validation means, what it returns, or how it differs from similar tools, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role in a security monitoring context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but with no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids confusion—though it could hint at implicit inputs like rule data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Validate a detection rule' states a clear verb ('Validate') and resource ('detection rule'), but it's vague about what validation entails. It doesn't specify whether this validates syntax, logic, or configuration, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' or 'create_security_monitoring_rules_tests'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., before creation), or related tools like 'create_security_monitoring_rules' for actual rule creation, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Add') but doesn't specify required permissions, whether the link is permanent or editable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Add a new link'), making it easy to parse quickly, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (implied by 'Add') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of team management, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't clarify if any implicit parameters (like team ID) are required via context, slightly limiting completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a new link to a team' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('link to a team'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of link (e.g., URL, integration, reference) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_team_memberships' or 'update_team_links', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., team existence), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'update_team_links' or 'delete_team_links', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It should clarify what type of application key is being deleted, any prerequisites or permissions needed, and how this differs from other deletion tools. The current description leaves too many open questions for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to do so. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles all documentation needs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an application key' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('application key'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_current_user_application_key' or 'delete_service_account_application_keys', which appear to target specific types of application keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple deletion tools for application keys in the sibling list (delete_current_user_application_key, delete_service_account_application_keys), the agent has no indication whether this is a general deletion tool or specific to certain contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Archive' suggests a non-destructive operation (preserving data), but the description doesn't clarify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('Archive') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'archive' entails operationally, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of account management operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss nonexistent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Archive a Cloud Cost Management account' states a clear verb ('Archive') and resource ('Cloud Cost Management account'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'archive' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_cost_aws_cur_config' or 'delete_cost_azure_uc_config', which have similar naming patterns but different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when this operation is appropriate versus other deletion/archival tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Deletes' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Deletes' and specifies the target. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'endpoint' refers to in this context, what happens after deletion, error conditions, or required permissions. The lack of behavioral disclosure makes it inadequate for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('endpoint'), but it's vague about what exactly is being deleted. It mentions 'endpoint with the name <CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>' but doesn't specify this is part of webhooks configuration, which is implied by the tool name. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhook'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'get_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable' for checking existence first. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Removes a role from an archive', implying a destructive mutation, but does not address permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The API link offers external documentation but does not compensate for missing behavioral details in the description itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with an API link, which is concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying it's for logs config archives). The API link adds value but does not fully compensate for the brevity in core explanation, making it adequate but not exceptional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It identifies the action and resource but lacks context on permissions, side effects, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more completeness (e.g., warning about destructive effects) is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is applied as the schema fully covers the parameter semantics (none required).
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 ('Removes a role') and the target ('from an archive'), which matches the tool name 'delete_logs_config_archive_readers'. It specifies the resource (role in an archive) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'create_logs_config_archive_readers', which would require more context about what distinguishes this specific deletion operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the Roles API link but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_logs_config_archive' for deleting the archive itself). Without such context, an agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to associated data. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent must infer too much from the verb 'delete' alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies deletion targets a specific powerpack without specifying how (likely via context or URL). This meets expectations for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a powerpack' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (powerpack), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_monitor' or 'delete_slo' beyond the resource name, and it doesn't specify what a powerpack is or what deletion entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing powerpack), consequences of deletion, or when deletion might be inappropriate compared to other operations like 'update_powerpack'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive), but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential action. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain how to identify which filter to delete, what confirmation might be needed, what the response looks like, or error conditions. Given the complexity of security operations and complete lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. However, it doesn't explain how the 'specific' security filter is identified (e.g., via context or implicit parameters), which could be considered a minor semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a specific security filter' states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('security filter'), but it's vague about what constitutes 'specific' - it doesn't clarify if this refers to filtering by ID, name, or other criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on security filters rather than other resource types, but lacks precision about the deletion scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the filter first), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. With many sibling deletion tools, there's no differentiation strategy provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the key action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it's incomplete. The description lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and any indication of what 'specific' means or how to identify the rule. For a security-related deletion, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific suppression rule'), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't specify what a 'suppression rule' is in context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter' or 'delete_security_monitoring_rule', leaving purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or what makes a suppression rule 'specific' (e.g., by ID). With many sibling delete tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. No unnecessary words or structural issues are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error if variable doesn't exist), permissions required, or impact on related resources. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Synthetic global variable'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_synthetics_variables' by indicating deletion rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what a 'Synthetic global variable' is, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing variable to delete), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'delete_synthetics_private_location' or 'update_synthetics_variable' for related operations. Usage is implied only by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'existing' entails (e.g., if it fails for non-existent keys). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., vs. plural version). For a tool in a context with many similar 'get' operations, more specificity is needed to guide proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters, since no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an existing App Key Registration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('App Key Registration'), but it's vague about what exactly is retrieved (e.g., details, status, configuration). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_actions_app_key_registrations' (plural) or 'delete_actions_app_key_registration', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_actions_app_key_registrations' (likely for listing multiple) and 'update_actions_app_key_registration', the description offers no context on prerequisites, when this specific single retrieval is appropriate, or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns a single filter or a list, includes error handling, or has any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get an APM retention filter')—a single sentence that directly states the action and resource. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., a single filter object, configuration details), any authentication requirements, or how it differs from plural 'get' siblings. For a tool in a complex APM configuration context, more detail is needed to guide proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, the description is adequate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion about non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an APM retention filter' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('APM retention filter'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'Get' entails (retrieve one vs. list all) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_apm_config_retention_filters' (plural) or 'create_apm_config_retention_filters'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for when retrieval is needed, or differentiate from similar 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_apm_config_retention_filters' for multiple filters). Usage is implied only by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full definition' entails. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the full definition of an app.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving an app definition, the description is incomplete. No annotations, no output schema, and minimal detail leave the agent guessing about the return format, error conditions, and how to identify the target app. For a tool that likely requires context (e.g., app ID), this is inadequate despite the zero parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. It implies the tool retrieves an app definition without specifying which app, but this is a minor gap given the zero-parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get the full definition of an app,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('app'), but lacks detail on what constitutes a 'full definition' or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_app_builder_apps' in the sibling list. It avoids tautology but doesn't provide specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_app_builder_apps' or 'create_app_builder_apps'. The agent must infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it returns a specific key or a list, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieval by ID, listing, generation), the return format, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an application key for your org' states the action (get) and resource (application key) but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves a single key, lists keys, or generates a new key, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_application_keys' (plural) or 'create_application_keys'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_application_keys' (likely for listing) and 'create_application_keys' (likely for creation), the description offers no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what format the response takes. The description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns structured case data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and presumably returning case details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, the response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity of case data in this system (with sibling tools for case attributes, priority, status, etc.), more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly mentions the 'case_id' parameter, adding semantic meaning beyond the empty input schema. With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description compensates by indicating what the single expected input should be, though it doesn't specify format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as retrieving case details using a case_id parameter, which is clear but basic. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'case details', but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_cases' (plural) or provide any scope or depth information about what 'details' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_cases' (which appears to list multiple cases) or 'create_cases', nor does it specify prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List resource filters', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'List resource filters' is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, conveying the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by the name involving cloud security management), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'resource filters' are, how they are used, or what the return values look like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List resource filters' states a verb ('List') and resource ('resource filters'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'resource filters' are in the cloud security management context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_cloud_security_management_custom_framework' or 'update_cloud_security_management_resource_filters', making it vague rather than clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'update_cloud_security_management_resource_filters' for modification purposes. Usage is implied only by the verb 'List', but no explicit guidelines are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'files' means in this context. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Custom Costs files' are, what format they're in, how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since there are none. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the Custom Costs files' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Custom Costs files'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't distinguish from potential sibling tools like 'get_cost_custom_cost' (singular) or other cost-related tools in the extensive sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_custom_cost' (singular) or other cost-related tools, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detail' includes (e.g., fields returned). The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part ('Get downtime detail by `downtime_id`') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a contradictory parameter hint, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detail' includes, error handling, or authentication needs. For a read operation, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly, especially with the schema-parameter mismatch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented. The description mentions 'by `downtime_id`', which suggests a parameter is needed despite the schema indicating none. This adds semantic value by hinting at a required identifier, but it's inconsistent with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but the contradiction slightly reduces clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get downtime detail by `downtime_id`' states the action (get) and resource (downtime detail), but it's vague about what 'detail' entails. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_downtimes' (plural) by implying single-item retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other downtime-related tools like 'downtimes_cancel' or 'update_downtime'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid downtime_id), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'get_downtimes' for listing multiple downtimes. Usage is implied only by the parameter reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Revoke' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also doesn't describe what 'revoke' means operationally (e.g., disabling access vs. deletion). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'revoke' entails, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by 'revoke' (likely a permission/access change), more context about behavior and results is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description mentions 'a specified embed' which implies some identification mechanism, but since parameters are explicitly documented as empty in the schema, the description doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Revoke a specified embed' clearly states the action (revoke) and target (embed), but lacks specificity about what 'embed' refers to in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_graph_embed' or 'create_graph_embeds', leaving ambiguity about the exact resource being manipulated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing embed to revoke), appropriate contexts, or what happens after revocation. With sibling tools like 'get_graph_embed' and 'create_graph_embeds', the agent receives no help in choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns a single account, requires account ID). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple but vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., account details, configuration), any constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex integration context, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's no schema burden to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Cloudflare account' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Cloudflare account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'Get' means (list, retrieve details, fetch configuration) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_cloudflare_accounts' (plural vs singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from similar tools (e.g., 'get_integrations_cloudflare_accounts' for multiple accounts). This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'account' data is returned. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide needed context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is inadequate. The agent doesn't know what data is returned, in what format, or any behavioral constraints. While the tool is simple (0 parameters), the description should at least hint at the return value or scope given the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Fastly account' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Fastly account'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about scope - does it retrieve a single account, all accounts, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_accounts' (plural) which suggests this might retrieve a single account, but this isn't explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_accounts' (which appears to retrieve multiple accounts). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieval of a single service vs. list). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., service details, list format) or any behavioral context needed for proper use. For a tool with no structured support, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from the well-documented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Fastly service for an account' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Fastly service'), but it's vague about scope—it doesn't specify whether this retrieves a single service, all services, or something else. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_account_services_v2', which appears similar, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_account_services_v2' for differentiation. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes all accounts or filtered ones, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource ('Okta accounts'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Okta accounts' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a listing tool in a complex integration environment, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter situation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Okta accounts' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('Okta accounts'), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Okta accounts' refers to (e.g., integrated accounts, user accounts) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_okta_account' (singular) or other integration listing tools. It's adequate but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_integrations_okta_account' (singular) and other integration-related tools (e.g., 'get_integrations_cloudflare_accounts'), but the description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. It's a bare statement with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning an array of LogIndex objects but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, involves pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undefined, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the first sentence ('The Index object describes...') is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) or output format specifics. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention read-only nature or organizational scope to be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids redundancy and adds value by explaining the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'returns an array of the LogIndex objects of your organization,' which clarifies it retrieves log index configurations. However, it's vague about the action ('returns' is generic) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_indexe' or 'get_logs_config_index_orders'—the name suggests a 'get' operation, but the description lacks specificity on scope or differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for configuration management), or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage cues. Sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_indexes' or 'update_logs_config_indexe' imply related operations, but no explicit comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'devices' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of resources, more detail on output structure or usage constraints would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any missing param info, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the list of devices' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('devices'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ndm_device' (singular) or other device-related tools. It lacks specificity about what kind of devices or what 'ndm' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_ndm_device' (for a single device) or 'update_ndm_tags_device' (for updates).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get a notebook') without detailing aspects like read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get a notebook') and efficiently specifies the method ('using the specified notebook ID'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but inadequate. It does not explain what 'get' returns (e.g., notebook details, content, or status), potential errors, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'using the specified notebook ID,' which implies an input, but since the schema shows no properties, this could be confusing. However, with zero parameters, the baseline is high as the schema fully covers the lack of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get a notebook using the specified notebook ID,' which clearly indicates a retrieval action on a notebook resource. However, it lacks specificity about what 'get' entails (e.g., fetch metadata, content, or both) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_notebooks' (plural) or 'notebooks_get' (alternative naming), leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a notebook ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_notebooks' (likely for listing) or 'notebooks_get' (similar function), leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Gets all users', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., all users associated with a role, potentially across an organization). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Gets all users of a role'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters but potential behavioral nuances), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'users' means in this context (e.g., user objects, IDs, names), the return format, or any constraints. For a tool that likely returns a list of users, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets all users of a role' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('users of a role'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about scope (e.g., does 'all' mean all users globally or within a specific context?) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_role' or 'get_users', which might retrieve different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a role identifier), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_role' or 'get_users' from the sibling list. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, returns a single SLO by ID, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SLOs and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'service level objective object' entails, how it's retrieved (e.g., by ID), or what the return format is, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't contradict the schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a service level objective object' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('service level objective object'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve one vs. list all) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_slos' or 'search_slos', which might handle multiple SLOs or filtered searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_slos' (likely for listing) and 'search_slos' (likely for filtered searches), the agent lacks explicit or implied context for choosing 'get_slo' over these, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get all' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the data returns. The description is too minimal to guide an agent on how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all Service Level Objective corrections') and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of SLO corrections in a monitoring context, no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what SLO corrections are, how the data is structured, if there are limitations (e.g., time ranges, organization scope), or what the return format looks like. For a tool that likely returns a list of corrections, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all Service Level Objective corrections' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Service Level Objective corrections'), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_slo_correction' (singular) and 'get_slo_corrections_v1_2'. It doesn't specify what 'all' means in terms of filtering or pagination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools including 'get_slo_correction' (singular) and 'get_slo_corrections_v1_2', the description fails to indicate whether this is the primary list tool, a bulk retrieval method, or how it differs from similar endpoints. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but also no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'corrections' are, the return format, or any behavioral constraints. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get corrections applied to an SLO' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('corrections applied to an SLO'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'corrections' entail and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_slo_correction' or 'get_slo_corrections_v1'. It avoids tautology by specifying the resource beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_slo_correction' or 'get_slo_corrections_v1' (both siblings). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get'), but doesn't provide any behavioral context about permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, what format the response might be in, or any potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides minimal behavioral context, this is incomplete. The tool appears to be a read operation (based on the 'get' prefix), but without annotations or description details about response format, authentication requirements, or usage constraints, an agent would lack important contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't. With no parameters to document, the baseline is appropriately high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the default locations settings' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('default locations settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'default locations settings' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_locations' or 'get_synthetics_settings_on_demand_concurrency_caps'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple synthetics-related 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_synthetics_locations, get_synthetics_settings_on_demand_concurrency_caps), but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool for 'default locations settings' is appropriate versus those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a single link,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'single link' entails (e.g., by ID or default). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Get a single link for a team.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'link' means, how it's identified, or the return format, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get a single link for a team,' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('link for a team'), making it clear what it does at a basic level. However, it's vague about what 'link' refers to (e.g., URL, relationship, or identifier) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_team_links_v2' or 'create_team_links,' leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, when it's appropriate (e.g., for retrieving a specific link vs. multiple links), or references to sibling tools like 'get_team_links_v2,' leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, time range defaults, or what format the hourly usage data is returned in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the hourly usage data is returned in, what time range is covered (current hour? last 24 hours?), whether authentication is required, or how this differs from other usage tools. For a tool in a complex monitoring/analytics system, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get hourly usage by product family' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'hourly usage by product family', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_usage_billable_summaries' or 'get_usage_summaries', which appear to be related usage tools, leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that appear to retrieve usage data (e.g., get_usage_billable_summaries, get_usage_summaries, get_usage_hourly_attributions), there's no indication of when this specific hourly usage by product family tool is appropriate versus other usage retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of usage logging, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'hourly usage' returns (e.g., metrics, timestamps), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get hourly usage for logs by index' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('hourly usage for logs by index'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'hourly usage' entails (e.g., metrics, counts, or detailed logs). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_logs_events' or 'logs_aggregate_analytics', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, timing (e.g., real-time vs. historical), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_usage_hourly_usages' or 'aggregate_logs_analytics', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a list', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes nested data, or has any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a list of memberships for a user'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., 'get_team_memberships'), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the scope of 'memberships', return format, or how it differs from alternatives, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is high as there is nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a list of memberships for a user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('memberships for a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'memberships' entails (e.g., team memberships, role memberships) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team_memberships' or 'get_user', which are present in the sibling list, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_team_memberships', 'get_user', and 'get_users' available, there is no indication of whether this tool is for retrieving all memberships for a specific user or if it serves a distinct purpose, leading to potential misuse without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and adds no context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get a notebook by ID') with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., notebook details, content, metadata) or any behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a notebook by ID' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('notebook'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve details, fetch content). It distinguishes from siblings like 'notebooks_list' and 'notebooks_create' by specifying 'by ID', but lacks specificity on the scope of retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'notebooks_list' for listing all notebooks). The description implies usage when you have a specific notebook ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Get role by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get role by ID') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word contributes to the core purpose, though it could benefit from more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters but likely requiring an ID context) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the ID is specified (e.g., path parameter), what the return value includes, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters are documented. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, it doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description is sufficient for a parameterless tool, though it could hint at how the ID is provided (e.g., in the URL).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get role by ID' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('role'), but it's vague about what 'role' refers to (e.g., user role, system role) and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_roles' (likely a list operation) or 'get_role' (similar but with different parameters), making it minimally adequate but with gaps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for retrieving a single role by ID versus using 'get_roles' for listing roles or 'get_role' (another sibling) for different parameters. The description offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete SLO' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related monitors or alerts), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete SLO') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, consequences, or error handling. The context signals show 0 parameters, but the description doesn't explain how the SLO to delete is specified (e.g., via prior context or tool chaining).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, though it could mention that SLO identification might be handled elsewhere (e.g., via context or prior steps). Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete SLO' states the verb (delete) and resource (SLO), making the basic purpose clear. However, it lacks specificity about what SLO means (Service Level Objective) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_slo' which appears to be a duplicate. It's vague about scope and mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'delete_slo' (apparently a duplicate) and 'can_delete_slos' (a permission check), but the description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or when deletion is appropriate versus updating or archiving.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get team by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Get team by ID'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter design, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'team' is in this context, what information is returned, or how errors are handled. While concise, it lacks necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies the tool requires a team ID (though not explicitly stated as a parameter). This meets expectations for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get team by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('team'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'team' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' or 'teams_list', which appear to serve similar functions based on the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'get_team' and 'teams_list', suggesting potential overlap, but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those other team-related retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List teams' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the core action. For a simple list operation with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or authentication needs. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List teams' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('teams'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of teams are listed (e.g., names, IDs, members) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'teams_get' or 'get_teams' which might have different functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'teams_get', 'get_teams', and 'create_teams' available, there's no indication whether this is for listing all teams, filtered lists, or something else. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers zero behavioral disclosure. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The single phrase 'Unmute a monitor' provides no operational context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential action without any wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse while conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'unmute' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. While the parameter situation is simple, the lack of behavioral and output information makes this inadequate for confident tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, though it could mention that no inputs are required.
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 'Unmute a monitor' clearly states the action (unmute) and resource (monitor) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mute_monitor' and 'mute_monitor_v1' by indicating the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what type of monitor or system context, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., monitor must be muted first), conditions for use, or comparison to similar tools like 'unmute_host' or 'unmute_monitor' (without _v1). This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies organizational settings, making it inadequate for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating organizational settings, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, it lacks critical details like authentication needs, error handling, or what 'update' entails. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a configuration management system, but the description doesn't provide enough context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is assigned as it meets expectations for a tool with no parameters, avoiding penalization for missing information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a retention filter from your organization' states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('retention filter'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated (e.g., settings, configuration, status) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_apm_config_metric' or 'update_rum_application_retention_filters'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a filter), or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'create_apm_config_retention_filters' or 'delete_apm_config_retention_filter' for comparison. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action ('Edit'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what 'Edit' involves, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies authentication mappings, more detail is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters, as there's no schema burden to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit an AuthN Mapping' states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('AuthN Mapping'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'Edit' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_authn_mappings' or 'delete_authn_mapping', which are clearly related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing AuthN Mapping to edit), exclusions, or how it differs from create/delete operations. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a dashboard'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters in the input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be updated, how to provide the ID, what the response contains, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'using the specified ID', implying an ID parameter is needed, but doesn't specify its format or source. Since there are 0 parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4, but the description adds minimal value by hinting at an ID requirement without details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a dashboard using the specified ID' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('dashboard'), but it's vague about what aspects of a dashboard can be updated. It doesn't specify whether this updates settings, widgets, layout, or other properties, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_dashboard_v1' or 'update_dashboards' (plural).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_dashboard_v1', 'update_dashboards', and 'create_dashboards', there's no indication of differences in scope, version, or use cases. It also lacks prerequisites, such as needing an existing dashboard ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the operation entails (e.g., bulk updates, atomic changes). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that modifies dashboard lists, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update dashboards of an existing dashboard list' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('dashboards of an existing dashboard list'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'dashboards' refers to (e.g., adding/removing dashboards, modifying dashboard settings). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_dashboard_lists_manual' or 'update_dashboard', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_dashboard_lists_manual' (likely updating list metadata) and 'update_dashboard' (likely updating dashboard content), the description offers no context on prerequisites, distinctions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update a dashboard' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Update a dashboard', a single sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. However, it misses an opportunity to clarify if parameters are implied (e.g., via context like dashboard ID).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a dashboard' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('dashboard'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a dashboard can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' (without '_v1'), making it vague in differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing dashboard), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'create_dashboard_v1', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the assignee doesn't exist. Significant behavioral gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'assignee' means (e.g., user ID, team), error conditions, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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?
Parameter count is 0 with 100% schema coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'issue_id' as the identifier, which is helpful context, but since there are no parameters, baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and target ('assignee of an issue'), but lacks specificity about what resource type (error tracking issue) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_error_tracking_issue_state'. It's clear but generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'update_error_tracking_issue_state' or 'search_error_tracking_issues'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update a Fastly account'), making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified), what the response might contain, or any behavioral constraints. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none to describe. It avoids redundancy, so a baseline score of 4 is warranted for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a Fastly account' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Fastly account'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of the account can be updated or the scope of changes, which would help distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_integrations_fastly_account_services' or 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing Fastly account), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' for creation or 'delete_integrations_fastly_account' for deletion, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Updates'), but fails to specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, as the agent lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a purpose, adhering to ideal conciseness standards.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Updates' entails, the expected outcome, or any side effects. For a tool that modifies configurations, this lack of detail leaves the agent underinformed about its behavior and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description mentions `<WEBHOOK_NAME>` as part of the endpoint, but since no parameters exist, this is likely embedded in the tool path or context. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Updates the endpoint with the name `<WEBHOOK_NAME>`' states a vague purpose: it specifies the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'endpoint', but lacks clarity on what exactly is being updated (e.g., configuration, settings, status) and what an 'endpoint' refers to in this context. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks' or 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhook', leaving ambiguity about its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing webhook), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as create or delete operations for webhooks. This absence leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'updates' (implying a mutation) and describes the return value, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose, but the second sentence about return values is somewhat redundant for a tool with no parameters. It could be more concise by integrating the return info into the first sentence or omitting it if output schema were provided. It's not wasteful but could be tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'index order' means, potential side effects, or error handling. The return value is mentioned, but without an output schema, more detail on the 'index order object' would help. It falls short for a tool that modifies organizational configuration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'request body' implicitly, but since there are no parameters, it doesn't need to elaborate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the (nonexistent) parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'updates the index order of your organization.' It specifies the verb ('updates') and resource ('index order of your organization'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_indexe' or 'get_logs_config_index_orders', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_index_orders' for retrieval or 'update_logs_config_indexe' for other index updates. The agent is left without context for appropriate tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action ('Update') without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. It lacks critical context for a mutation tool, making it insufficient for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Org Config' means, the impact of updates, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here; baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, though it could hint at implicit parameters if any exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the value of a specific Org Config' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Org Config'), but it's vague about what 'Org Config' entails—whether it's settings, parameters, or metadata. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_org' or 'get_org_config', leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'update_org' and 'get_org_config', but the description doesn't specify if this is for configuration vs. metadata updates, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions the return format, but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and avoids unnecessary fluff, but it's not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second sentence about return values could be integrated more smoothly. It's concise but could be more front-loaded with critical information given the mutation nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, and how to identify the specific filter to update. The return statement is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a RUM retention filter for a RUM application'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'delete_rum_application_retention_filters', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing filter to update), compare to create/delete siblings, or specify appropriate contexts. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to make informed usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error handling. More context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, which is acceptable here since there are no params to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and resource ('a specific suppression rule'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what aspects of the suppression rule can be updated or provide any distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' or 'delete_security_monitoring_configuration_suppression'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing suppression rule to update, or differentiate it from create/delete operations for suppression rules in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('change'), suggesting it's not read-only, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a security signal's state, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on what 'triage state' means, potential values, or side effects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change the triage state of a security signal' clearly states the action ('change') and resource ('security signal'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'triage state' specifically entails (e.g., status values like 'open', 'closed', 'investigating'). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_security_monitoring_signal_assignee' or 'update_security_monitoring_signal_incidents', which also modify security signals but for different attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific signal ID or permissions, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools that update other aspects of security signals (e.g., assignee or incidents). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a partial update operation with optional fields, which implies mutation behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, what happens when no fields are provided, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly convey the core information: the partial update operation and the optional field behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'security signals notification rule' is, what fields can be updated, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The empty input schema means parameters aren't the issue, but overall context about this security-specific resource is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description correctly states 'All fields are optional' which aligns with the empty schema. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds appropriate context about the partial update nature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Partially update[s] the notification rule' which clarifies the verb (update) and resource (notification rule). However, it doesn't specify what a 'security signals notification rule' is or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rule' or 'update_monitor_notification_rule', making the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'All fields are optional' which is a usage constraint, but doesn't indicate prerequisites, when this partial update is appropriate versus full replacement, or how it differs from sibling notification rule tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that rules can be reordered and specifies constraints about the rules relationship, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise (three sentences) but has structural issues. The first sentence is clear, but the following sentences about rule reordering constraints are somewhat technical and could be better integrated. While not verbose, the description feels incomplete rather than optimally concise, as it leaves out important behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains the rule reordering aspect but fails to address the broader context: what 'updating a group' entails beyond rule order, what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that modifies sensitive data scanner configuration, more comprehensive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description adds value by explaining the conceptual parameter 'rules relationship' and its constraints (must include all current rules, no others), which provides important semantic context beyond the empty schema. This earns a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update a group') and specifies the resource ('sensitive data scanner config group' from the tool name). It adds important detail about reordering rules within the group, which goes beyond the basic 'update' verb. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule' or 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_configs', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related update tools. The sibling list includes 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule' and 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_configs', but the description doesn't help an agent choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. It's minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'edit' involves, what fields can be modified, or the expected outcome, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a Synthetic private location' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Synthetic private location'), but it's vague about what 'edit' entails. It doesn't specify which aspects can be edited (e.g., name, configuration, status) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_private_locations' or 'delete_synthetics_private_location'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing private location), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_private_locations' or 'delete_synthetics_private_location' for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an update operation, implying mutation, but does not disclose critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of transparency is a significant gap that could lead to misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update a team permission setting'), making it easy to parse. There is no wasted text, and it earns its place by clearly conveying the basic function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as what permission settings are involved, how to specify the team, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies permissions—a sensitive operation—this minimal description is inadequate and could lead to confusion or incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since the schema is empty). The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but with no parameters to document, this is acceptable. It implies the tool operates on a team and its permission settings, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Update a team permission setting for a given team,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('team permission setting'), but lacks detail on what settings can be updated or what 'permission setting' entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_team' or 'update_team_memberships,' which are related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing team ID or specific permissions), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_team_permission_settings' for viewing settings. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes all fields or a subset, or has any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'List users', which efficiently conveys the core action and resource. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. This is a model of brevity for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or authentication needs, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. While minimal, it should provide more context for a read operation in a system with many similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (since there are none), so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of listing (e.g., all users, filtered, paginated) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_users' or 'search_monitors' that might have similar functions. It's adequate but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_users', 'users_get', 'search_monitors') that could potentially retrieve user data, but the description doesn't indicate any context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could potentially be more front-loaded with additional context about when to use it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Cloud Cost Management account' entails, what 'GCP Usage Cost config' means, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects like permissions needed or side effects. The agent would need to guess these important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information, so it meets the baseline expectation for a tool with no parameters. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('Cloud Cost Management account for a GCP Usage Cost config'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from other 'create' tools by specifying the exact type of account being created, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'create_cost_azure_uc_configs' beyond the GCP focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. While the name implies it's for GCP cost management, there's no explicit comparison to other cost configuration tools or indication of when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'provide failure data' implies a write/create operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this creates new records or updates existing ones, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and use cases. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second provides specific context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between purpose and guidelines.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'provide') with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needed, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'provide failure data' means operationally, what format the data should be in, what happens after submission, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely creates important metric data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema provides complete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'provide failure data for DORA metrics' with specific mention of the metrics it supports (Change Failure Rate, Time to Restore). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dora_deployments_v2 by focusing on failure data rather than deployment data. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'create' or 'submit') which would make it a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what the tool is 'necessary for' but doesn't indicate when to use it versus other DORA-related tools like create_dora_deployments_v2 or get_dora_failure. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Roles API link but doesn't describe what 'adds' entails—whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a tool that likely modifies access controls, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and includes a relevant API documentation link. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the link to the end for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a mutating operation (adding roles). It doesn't explain the expected outcome, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema, earning a baseline score above 3 for compensating with no required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds a read role') and the target resource ('to an archive'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_archives' by focusing on role assignment rather than archive creation, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing archive), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_logs_config_archive' or 'delete_logs_config_archive_readers' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a metric and returns the created object, which implies a write operation. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether the metric is editable/deletable, rate limits, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return information. It's efficient with no wasted words. However, the second sentence ('Returns the log-based metric object...') could be integrated more smoothly, and it slightly repeats 'request' unnecessarily.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a creation operation with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to describe the return value. The description mentions the return but lacks specifics (e.g., format, structure). For a mutation tool in a monitoring/logging context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it could mention if configuration is passed elsewhere (e.g., in request body). Since no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a metric based on your ingested logs in your organization.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('metric'), and source ('ingested logs'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'create' tools like 'create_apm_config_metrics' or 'create_rum_config_metrics', which also create metrics from different data sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing logs ingested first), compare it to other metric-creation tools (like 'create_apm_config_metrics'), or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a site restriction (US1-FED unavailability), which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other important traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing a critical note. Both sentences earn their place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or typical workflow context. The Government site note is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate given the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new Workload Protection agent rule'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_remote_config_products_cws_policies' or 'create_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rules', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a single usage guideline about the Government (US1-FED) site restriction, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The note is helpful but insufficient for comprehensive 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a site restriction (US1-FED unavailability) which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other important traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal behavioral information beyond the basic creation action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important caveat information. No wasted words, though the note about US1-FED could be more integrated with the main description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Workload Protection policy' is, what fields it might contain, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The US1-FED restriction is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing core contextual information about this security policy creation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'with the given parameters' which acknowledges parameter existence despite the empty schema, but doesn't elaborate on what those parameters might be. This is acceptable given the zero-parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new Workload Protection policy') and resource type, which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rules' or 'create_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rules', which appear to be related security policy creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a negative guideline about the US1-FED site restriction, but offers no positive guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'update_remote_config_products_cws_policy' or 'delete_remote_config_products_cws_policy'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 'upload or replace,' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., validation errors), or if it affects existing SAML logins. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the endpoint's purpose, and the second reinforces usage. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and context. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key points) but remains efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for SAML configuration), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), prerequisites, or side effects. For a security-sensitive operation like SAML setup, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since none exist. However, it doesn't clarify if metadata is provided via request body, headers, or other means, leaving a minor gap. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
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: 'upload or replace IdP metadata for SAML login configuration.' It specifies the verb ('upload or replace'), resource ('IdP metadata'), and context ('SAML setup'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'update_saml_configurations' or similar, which might exist in other contexts but aren't listed in the provided sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance, stating only 'Use this endpoint to upload or replace IdP metadata for SAML login configuration.' It lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria, prerequisites (e.g., existing SAML configuration), or alternatives (e.g., other SAML setup tools). No sibling tools in the list appear directly related, but the guidance is insufficient for an agent to make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an authentication requirement, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what 'execute' entails (e.g., whether it triggers an immediate run, returns an instance ID, or has side effects), nor does it cover error handling, rate limits, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Execute the given workflow'), followed by an authentication note. Both sentences are relevant, though the link formatting could be simplified for plain text contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that executes workflows (a potentially complex operation), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it lacks information on what execution entails, what the output looks like, error conditions, or how it differs from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on execution context rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Execute the given workflow') and resource ('workflow'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_workflows' (which likely creates workflow definitions) or 'update_workflow' (which modifies definitions), leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions an authentication requirement (registered application key), which provides some usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workflows' or 'update_workflow_instances_cancel', nor does it specify prerequisites beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 authentication requirements (app key or UI configuration), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second provides authentication details. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence includes markdown links that might be verbose in some contexts, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication but misses critical context: irreversible nature, side effects, success/error responses, and how to identify the connection to delete. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more behavioral disclosure is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description does not introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an existing Action Connection'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., delete_actions_app_key_registration), which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions authentication requirements but does not specify prerequisites like needing an existing connection ID or when deletion is appropriate compared to other operations like update_actions_connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the admin key requirement (an auth need) which is valuable, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is reversible, what 'disable' actually means (account deactivation vs deletion), whether data is preserved, confirmation requirements, or what the response looks like. For a destructive user management tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the key constraint. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'disable' entails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive user management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the admin requirement but omits critical context: what 'disable' means operationally, whether it's reversible, what happens to the user's data/access, confirmation requirements, and expected response format. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about this tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (empty object) with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion about parameters that don't exist.
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 ('Disable a user') which is more specific than just 'delete' from the tool name, though it doesn't specify what resource type or system this applies to. It distinguishes from the name by clarifying it's a disable operation rather than permanent deletion, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_user' vs 'delete_team' or 'delete_service_account'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 a single usage constraint ('Can only be used with an application key belonging to an administrator user'), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_user' to deactivate, or how it differs from other deletion tools for different resource types. No explicit when/when-not scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions an authentication requirement (registered application key), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, error conditions, or rate limits—critical gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one states the purpose, and the other adds authentication context. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence includes a markdown link that might not be fully parsed by an agent, slightly reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a 'get' operation with authentication requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'an existing Action Connection' entails—whether it's by ID, name, or returns all connections—and doesn't describe the return value, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't incorrectly imply any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('an existing Action Connection'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_actions_app_key_registration' or 'get_actions_app_key_registrations', which also retrieve Action-related data but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions an API requirement (registered application key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no indication of whether this retrieves a single connection, all connections, or how it differs from other 'get' tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'fetches' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'scan options' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter fetch tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scan options' include, the return format, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('fetches') and resource ('scan options configured for AWS accounts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_agentless_scanning_accounts_aw' or 'get_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws', but the resource specificity is adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' and 'update_agentless_scanning_accounts_aw', there's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or distinctions from similar 'get' tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving 'full details' including 'attributes and relationships,' which hints at comprehensive output, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the lack of parameters or output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (retrieving detailed issue data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, how to identify the 'specific issue,' or the response structure. For a tool that likely returns complex data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full details for a specific error tracking issue'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_error_tracking_issues' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific issue rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools for error tracking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID), when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct alternatives like 'search_error_tracking_issues' for listing issues. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could be slightly more structured with additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the list output looks like (e.g., format, fields), any authentication requirements, or error conditions, which are crucial for a tool that interacts with cloud integrations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools as per the guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Datadog-GCP STS delegate account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_gcp_accounts' or 'create_integration_gcp_sts_delegates', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a site-specific limitation (not available for US1-FED), which is useful context, but it does not describe other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a necessary note without redundancy. There is no wasted text, and the structure effectively communicates key information in a minimal format, though it could be slightly improved by integrating the note more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving remote config and agent rules), the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the agent lacks information on return values, error conditions, or operational constraints beyond the site limitation. The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with security configurations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since none are needed. Given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, this score reflects that the description adequately addresses the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.
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: 'Get the details of a specific Workload Protection agent rule.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Workload Protection agent rule'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rules' (plural) or 'update_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule', which might retrieve multiple rules or modify them, respectively, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a note about unavailability for the Government (US1-FED) site, which is a specific exclusion, but it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for invocation, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rules' (which likely lists multiple rules). Without such guidance, the agent may struggle to select the correct tool in relevant scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a site restriction (US1-FED unavailability), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe other key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one states the purpose, and the other provides a restriction note. It's relatively concise, but the second sentence could be more integrated. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the note about US1-FED, while important, might be better as a separate clause. It's not wasteful, but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It states what the tool does and a key restriction. However, for a tool that likely returns a list of agent rules, it doesn't explain the return format, pagination, or any other behavioral aspects. With no structured fields to rely on, the description should do more to compensate, but it only partially fills the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. It adds no semantic details beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is high. The description correctly avoids discussing non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of Workload Protection agent rules.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Workload Protection agent rules'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule' (singular) or 'get_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rules', which might cover similar resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage restriction: 'This endpoint is not available for the Government (US1-FED) site.' This is helpful but limited. It doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'get' tools for agent rules), nor does it mention prerequisites or typical contexts. The note about referencing a specific resource for US1-FED is more of a limitation 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it returns a single rule or multiple rules, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, and the information is front-loaded with the essential 'Get the details' action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what resource is being retrieved. However, it lacks context about what 'details' include, whether this retrieves a specific rule or all rules, and how to identify which rule to get. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for the agent to understand the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than redundant parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the details of a notification rule for security vulnerabilities' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('notification rule for security vulnerabilities'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_security_signals_notification_rule' or 'get_monitor_notification_rule', leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes this notification rule different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple similar 'get_notification_rule' tools in the sibling list (security_signals, monitor, security_vulnerabilities), the description fails to indicate when this specific security vulnerabilities notification rule tool is appropriate versus other notification rule types. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions an authentication requirement (application key) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'instances' entails. The description is minimal and misses most behavioral context needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second adds an authentication requirement. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing workflow instances likely involves pagination, filtering, or sorting), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description fails to address how results are returned, what an 'instance' includes, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('instances of a given workflow'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_instances_v2_2' or 'get_workflow', leaving room for ambiguity about version differences or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions an API requirement (registered application key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools present (including another workflow instances tool), there's no indication of context, prerequisites beyond auth, or differentiation from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Edit metadata' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing metadata not mentioned, or what the response looks like. The external documentation link doesn't compensate for these missing behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and provide a reference link. There's no wasted verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. While it states the basic purpose, it lacks crucial information about permissions, side effects, response format, and how it differs from similar update operations in the extensive sibling tool list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to do so. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as established in the guidelines.
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 ('Edit') and resource ('metadata of a specific metric'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_metric_tags' or 'update_monitor', which reduces its differentiation value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a link to documentation about 'supported types', but this is generic reference material rather than specific usage instructions for this particular tool in context of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool returns the metric object from the request body, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the action, and the second describes the return value. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'rum-based metric' means, what fields can be updated, or how this differs from other update operations. The return value description is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters where the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a specific rum-based metric from your organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_rum_application' or 'update_rum_application_retention_filters', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling update tools in the system (including other RUM-related updates), there's no indication of what makes this metric update operation distinct or when it should be selected over other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update/replace all tags,' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing tags not in the request. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly stating the tool name or separating key points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for tags), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters (which may indicate hidden complexity), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'integration source' is, how tags are formatted, what the response looks like, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'those supplied in the request,' implying some input is required but doesn't specify what (e.g., tags array, source identifier). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description could be more explicit about expected inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('update/replace') and resource ('all tags in an integration source'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_tags_host' or 'delete_tags_host', which would require mentioning what makes tag replacement different from creation or deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing tags to replace), exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), or sibling tools like 'create_tags_host' or 'delete_tags_host' for comparison. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation into 'buckets of computed metrics and timeseries,' which hints at read-only data processing, but doesn't specify whether this is a query, report generation, or analysis tool. Critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it modifies data are absent, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('aggregate') and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the lack of parameters or output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does (aggregation into metrics/timeseries). However, without annotations, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only vs. mutative, performance implications). For a tool with no parameters, the description is minimally complete but misses opportunities to clarify usage and behavioral traits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'aggregate CI Visibility pipeline events into buckets of computed metrics and timeseries.' It specifies the verb ('aggregate'), resource ('CI Visibility pipeline events'), and output format ('buckets of computed metrics and timeseries'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aggregate_ci_tests_analytics' or 'aggregate_spans_analytics', which likely aggregate different data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'aggregate_ci_tests_analytics' for test events). The phrase 'Use this API endpoint' is generic and doesn't offer actionable usage instructions.
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?
Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries full burden. 'Get all aggregated connections' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all aggregated connections'). For a simple tool with no parameters, this is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex aggregated data. The description doesn't explain what 'connections' are, what aggregation entails, or the format of results. For a tool in a monitoring/analytics context with many siblings, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. This aligns perfectly with the schema, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all aggregated connections' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated connections'), but is vague about what 'connections' refers to (network connections? API connections?) and what 'aggregated' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'aggregate_network_dns' or 'aggregate_logs_analytics'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions aggregation into 'buckets of computed metrics and timeseries,' which implies a read-only analytical operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether it's a query or mutation. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'The API endpoint to aggregate RUM events into buckets of computed metrics and timeseries.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an aggregation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.
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: 'aggregate RUM events into buckets of computed metrics and timeseries.' It specifies the verb (aggregate), resource (RUM events), and output format (buckets of computed metrics and timeseries). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' or 'aggregate_spans_analytics' beyond mentioning RUM events, which is implied but not stated as a distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' and 'aggregate_spans_analytics', the lack of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Activate' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens if the account already has scanning activated, or what the expected response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('Activate') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Agentless scan options' are, what 'Activate' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and results.
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 (schema description coverage is 100% with empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Activate') and the resource ('Agentless scan options for an AWS account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws', which appears to be a related but distinct operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with the sibling 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws' tool that appears in the same domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the action and return value with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter creation tool and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'app' is in context, what data might be needed for creation (implied by no parameters but unclear), or the format of the returned app ID. For a creation operation, more context is needed despite the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is high since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new app') and the resource ('app'), and mentions the return value ('app ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_app_builder_app_deployment' by focusing on app creation rather than deployment. However, it doesn't specify what type of app (e.g., App Builder app) beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_app_builder_app_deployment' or 'get_app_builder_apps'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this generates secrets, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and potential parameter handling through unknownKeys passthrough, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application key' is, how it differs from other key types, what the creation entails, or what gets returned. The mismatch between description and schema further complicates understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'with a given name,' which implies a name parameter is required. However, the input schema shows 0 parameters and 100% coverage, suggesting parameters might be handled differently (e.g., via unknownKeys passthrough). The description adds some semantic context about naming, but there's a mismatch with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('application key'), specifying it requires a name parameter. It's specific enough to understand the basic function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_api_keys' or 'create_current_user_application_keys'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for creating different types of keys (api_keys, current_user_application_keys, service_account_application_keys), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions between these similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Create or update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, idempotency, error handling, or what happens when creating vs. updating. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'entities' consist of, what data format is expected, whether this is a batch operation, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or update') and target resource ('entities in Software Catalog'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_catalog_entities' or 'delete_catalog_entity', which would require explicit scope or usage context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_catalog_entities' (for reading) and 'delete_catalog_entity' (for deletion), the description offers no context about when creation vs. update is appropriate, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other catalog-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens if the config already exists, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what data is returned, error conditions, or any behavioral context. For a mutation operation with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (which is nothing, since there are no parameters). A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a Cloud Cost Management account for an AWS CUR config'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from other 'create_' tools by specifying the exact type of account being created, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'create_cost_azure_uc_configs' beyond the cloud provider name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other cost configuration tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is minimal. It lacks context about what a 'Cloud Cost Management account' entails, how it's configured, or what the result looks like. For a tool that likely involves cloud resource setup, more detail would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('Cloud Cost Management account for an Azure config'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'create_cost_gcp_uc_configs', which appear to serve similar purposes for different cloud providers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., for AWS or GCP configurations), leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write operation ('Add'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate additions, or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature (adding dashboards), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dashboards' refers to (e.g., IDs, names), how many can be added, the response format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add dashboards to an existing dashboard list' clearly states the action (add) and resource (dashboards to dashboard list), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_lists_manuals' or 'create_dashboards', which appear to create new dashboard lists or dashboards rather than adding to existing ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing dashboard list), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_dashboards' or 'update_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a sharing action that generates a public URL, implying a mutation (changing dashboard visibility). However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible (e.g., via 'delete_dashboard_public'), what happens if the dashboard is already public, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Share a specified private dashboard, generating a URL at which it can be publicly viewed.' It's front-loaded with the core action ('Share a specified private dashboard') and adds the outcome ('generating a URL...'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool that changes dashboard visibility), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to describe the generated URL or response format. The description mentions the outcome but doesn't detail what the tool returns (e.g., the URL structure, success indicators). For a tool that alters access controls, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though the schema is empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies the dashboard must be 'specified' (likely via context or another mechanism). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to document beyond what's implied.
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: 'Share a specified private dashboard, generating a URL at which it can be publicly viewed.' It uses specific verbs ('share', 'generating') and identifies the resource ('private dashboard'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_public_invitation' which might serve a similar sharing function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a private dashboard first), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_public_invitation' or 'update_dashboard_public'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter creation tool and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is minimal. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context about what an 'Amazon EventBridge source' entails, what gets created, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and sibling tools, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (which is nothing). A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('Amazon EventBridge source'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_aws_logs', which would require mentioning what makes an EventBridge source unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools starting with 'create_integration_aws', there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or when this specific integration type is appropriate compared to others like AWS logs or filtering integrations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if a filter already exists, whether changes are reversible, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('set') with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'AWS tag filter' is in this context, what setting it accomplishes, or provide any behavioral or outcome context. The agent would need to guess about the tool's effects and proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as there's nothing to explain beyond what's already structured.
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 'Set an AWS tag filter' clearly states the action (set) and resource (AWS tag filter), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_aws_filterings', which would require more specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the 'create_integration_aws*' family, there's no indication of prerequisites, when this specific filter-setting operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from related tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_aws_logs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation/attachment action ('Attach'), implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it modifies existing configurations. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (implied by 'create' in the name and 'Attach' in description) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that likely modifies cloud infrastructure, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description mentions 'Lambda ARN' and 'AWS account ID' as conceptual inputs, but since no parameters exist, this adds no semantic value beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 ('Attach'), the resource ('Lambda ARN'), and the purpose ('to enable log collection'). It specifies this is for 'Datadog-AWS log collection' and attaches to 'your AWS account ID', making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws_logs_services' or 'create_integration_aws', which might have overlapping functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pre-created Lambda), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws_logs_services'. The context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, response format, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively beyond the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for. However, it doesn't clarify if parameters are passed differently (e.g., in the body), which slightly limits the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('defined list of host filters for a given Datadog-Azure integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_integration_azures' or 'update_integration_azures', which reduces clarity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Azure integration), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_integration_azures' or 'update_integration_azures', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'STS enabled service account' means, what data the entry contains, whether this requires specific GCP configurations, or what the creation result looks like. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema (which indicates no parameters) and the tool appears to be a simple creation operation without inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new entry') and the resource ('within Datadog for your STS enabled service account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_azures' beyond the GCP focus implied in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing STS enabled), when not to use it, or what makes it different from other integration creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Workflows webhook handle' is, what data it returns, or any behavioral context needed for successful invocation. For a mutation operation, more context is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies this is a parameterless creation operation. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a Workflows webhook handle in the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles', which would require explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (creation) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'service object' entails, what data might be returned, or any behavioral context needed for proper usage. The agent would lack crucial information to invoke this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly doesn't mention any parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new service object in the Opsgenie integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_opsgenie_services' or 'update_integration_opsgenie_service', but the verb 'Create' inherently distinguishes it from read/update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'create_integration_pagerduty_configuration_services' or other integration creation tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'service object' entails in PagerDuty context, what data might be returned, or any behavioral constraints. For a mutation operation, this level of documentation is inadequate despite the simple parameter situation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, though the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new service object') and the target resource ('in the PagerDuty integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_integration_opsgenie_services' or 'create_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles', which follow similar patterns for different integrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing PagerDuty integration configured), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other service creation tools in the sibling list like 'create_services_definitions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a write operation ('Add'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as what data is needed to add a channel, the expected outcome, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate given the empty schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for not needing to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a channel') and the target resource ('to your Datadog-Slack integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels' by indicating a creation action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'create' tools for different integrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention any context for usage, such as when a Datadog-Slack integration must already exist, or refer to sibling tools like 'update_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels' for modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though the basic action is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is minimal but inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'monitor configuration policy' entails, what fields might be configured, or what the expected outcome is. While the zero-parameter count reduces complexity, the description should still provide more context about what's being created and why.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is justified since there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a monitor configuration policy' clearly states the action (create) and resource (monitor configuration policy), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_monitor' or 'create_monitor_v1', leaving ambiguity about what differentiates a 'monitor policy' from other monitor-related creations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including 'create_monitor', 'create_monitor_v1', 'create_monitor_notification_rules', and 'create_restriction_policy', there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options. The agent receives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'on-call escalation policy' is, what data it might return, or any behavioral context needed for safe invocation. The simplicity of zero parameters doesn't compensate for the lack of mutation-related guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's no gap to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new on-call escalation policy'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' or other 'create_' tools, which would require specifying what makes escalation policies distinct from other on-call resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when escalation policies are needed versus other on-call configurations, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_on_call_escalation_policy' or 'delete_on_call_escalation_policy'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. It provides only basic functional information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a WAF custom rule is, what parameters might be expected (despite passthrough schema), or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by the name, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'with the given parameters' which aligns with the schema's passthrough behavior, adding minimal but appropriate context. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new WAF custom rule'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filter' which also creates WAF-related rules, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'update_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule' or 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rules'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states the basic action but lacks critical context like what data is needed to create a role, what the response contains, or any behavioral constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new role for your organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_role_clone' or 'create_role_permissions', but it's specific enough to understand the basic function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_role_clone' or 'create_role_permissions', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Adds a user to a role,' implying a mutation operation, but does not cover permissions required, side effects (e.g., if the user already has the role), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Adds a user to a role.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states the purpose but lacks critical context such as behavioral details (e.g., permissions, idempotency), usage guidelines, or output expectations, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.
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 'Adds a user to a role' clearly states the action (adds) and the target (user to a role), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_role_users' or 'get_role_users', which handle removal or retrieval of role users respectively, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing roles or users), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'delete_role_users' for removal or 'create_roles' for role creation, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter creation tool and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling alternatives, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'RUM application' entails, what happens after creation, whether there are limitations or constraints, or how this differs from other creation operations. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively compared to alternatives.
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 (parameter count: 0, schema description coverage: 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. With no parameters to explain, the baseline score is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new RUM application') and specifies the scope ('in your organization'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'create_' sibling tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'create_rum_config_metrics', leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific creation tool versus others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including other RUM-related creation tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters'), there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this particular creation operation is appropriate versus other creation operations in the system.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create a new notification rule' and 'return the created rule', implying a write operation with a return value, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a notification rule (a mutation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'notification rule' entails, how it's configured, or what the return value includes. For a tool in a security context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('notification rule for security vulnerabilities'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security vulnerabilities rather than other notification types like 'monitor_notification_rules' or 'security_signals_notification_rules', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_monitor_notification_rules' and 'create_security_signals_notification_rules', there's no indication of the specific context for security vulnerabilities, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, what happens on duplicate creation, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'this service account' refers to (context dependency), what the created key looks like, whether it's returned or just created silently, or any error conditions. The tool appears to have contextual dependencies that aren't documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('an application key for this service account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_application_keys' or 'create_current_user_application_keys', which appear to create similar resources for different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing service account), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_application_keys' or 'create_current_user_application_keys'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention whether it requires admin permissions, what happens if a service account already exists, whether it returns credentials, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a service account entails, what permissions it might have, what the creation process involves, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of creating organizational resources, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'service account', specifying it's for 'your organization'. This distinguishes it from generic creation tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_users or create_api_keys which also create resources for the organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_users or create_api_keys. The description mentions 'for your organization' but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create or update' but doesn't clarify whether this is an upsert operation, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and target without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't explain what a 'service definition' entails or the expected outcome, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for this context, though it could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create or update') and resource ('service definition in the Datadog Service Catalog'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_catalog_entities' or 'create_catalog_kinds', which also create catalog-related resources, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., 'get_services_definitions' for reading or 'delete_services_definition' for removal), leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (create operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Synthetic private location' is, what data might be returned, or any side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but with no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for, and the schema fully covers the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new Synthetic private location'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_variables', which also create Synthetic-related resources, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling 'create_' tools in the list, the agent lacks direction on selecting this specific tool for private location creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Save new value' implies a mutation/write operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing values, whether the change is immediate or requires validation, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and clearly states the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It should explain what 'on-demand concurrency cap' means in context, what format the 'new value' should be in, whether there are constraints on the value, and what confirmation or result is returned. The current description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save new value') and resource ('on-demand concurrency cap'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_synthetics_settings_on_demand_concurrency_caps' by specifying a write operation. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'create_' tools in the list that also save values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't address critical aspects like permissions required, irreversibility, confirmation prompts, rate limits, or error handling. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., confirmation needs), error responses, or what happens upon success. For a deletion tool with zero structured support, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'by ID', which hints at an implied parameter (test IDs), but since the schema explicitly defines no parameters, this doesn't add necessary semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('multiple Synthetic tests by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_synthetics_private_location' or 'delete_synthetics_variable' by focusing on tests. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope or mechanism (e.g., batch vs. individual), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing test IDs), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'synthetics_delete_test' (which might handle single deletions). Without such context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical uptime, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of fetching uptime data (which could involve time ranges, aggregation, or status details), the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it does imply that test IDs are required (though not as parameters, possibly in another way like request body or headers), slightly clarifying the semantics. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch uptime') and resource ('multiple Synthetic tests by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_synthetics_tests' or 'search_synthetics_tests' that might also retrieve test data, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing test IDs), exclusions, or related tools from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create', implying a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Synthetic global variable' is, how it is used, what the creation entails, or what the response might look like. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it could hint at implicit parameters or context needed, but given the lack of parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as it adds no confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Synthetic global variable' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Synthetic global variable'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_private_locations' by specifying the type of resource, though it could be more specific about what a 'global variable' entails in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for creating various resources (e.g., 'create_synthetics_tests', 'create_synthetics_private_locations'), but the description does not indicate when a global variable is needed or what prerequisites might exist for its creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate additions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how user and team are specified (likely via context or defaults), what the return value is, or any error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies the tool likely uses context or defaults (e.g., user and team identifiers might be inferred). Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a user to a team' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('user to a team'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_teams' (creates teams) and 'delete_team_memberships' (removes users), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing team/user), constraints, or compare with sibling tools like 'update_team_memberships' for modifying memberships or 'get_team_memberships' for viewing them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 that users are added via the 'users' relationship field, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation requiring specific permissions, what happens if the team already exists, what the response contains, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a team creation tool (likely a mutation with organizational impact), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful creation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by mentioning the 'users' relationship field, which implies a mechanism for adding users, though it's not a formal parameter. This compensates for the lack of parameters, earning a baseline 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new team') and specifies that user IDs passed through the 'users' relationship field are added to the team. This provides a specific verb+resource and clarifies the effect on users, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_team_links' or 'create_team_memberships'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_team_links', 'create_team_memberships', 'update_team', and 'delete_team', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions between creating a team and managing its components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it sends invitation emails, what data is returned, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as what data is required (implied by parameters but not stated), what happens upon creation (e.g., user activation), and potential side effects. This leaves the agent poorly informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness, earning a baseline score above 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a user for your organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, but since there are no direct siblings with similar functionality (e.g., 'create_user_invitations' is different), this is acceptable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), constraints (e.g., user limits), or related tools like 'create_user_invitations' or 'update_user'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Agentless scan options' are, what gets deleted, whether deletion is permanent, what confirmation or side effects occur, or what the response contains. The context demands more completeness for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation gaps. However, it could theoretically mention that no parameters are required, though this isn't necessary given the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Agentless scan options for an AWS account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools (like 'delete_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' or 'delete_integration_aws'), which would require more specificity about what 'scan options' entails versus deleting entire accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for AWS account management (create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws, update_agentless_scanning_accounts_aw, get_agentless_scanning_accounts_aw), but the description doesn't indicate prerequisites, dependencies, or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without any behavioral context. It doesn't mention whether this is destructive, irreversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens after deletion. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'span-based metric' means, how to identify which metric to delete, what the deletion consequences are, or what confirmation/response to expect. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a specific span-based metric from your organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_apm_config_retention_filter' or 'delete_rum_config_metric', which appear to delete different types of configuration metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify which metric to delete), nor does it differentiate from other deletion tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'specific' means (how the filter is identified without parameters), what the response looks like, or error conditions. For a deletion tool with no structured support, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss nonexistent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a specific retention filter from your organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_apm_config_retention_filters' by specifying deletion rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_apm_config_metric'), which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing retention filter to delete), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other deletion tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation (destructive), but doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletions are permanent/reversible, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what happens if app IDs are invalid. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive bulk deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema that contradicts the description's implication of parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain how to provide app IDs, what the response looks like, or critical behavioral aspects like safety confirmations or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description implies input ('from a list of app IDs') but doesn't specify how this list is provided given the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero parameters, though the mismatch between description and schema is noted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete multiple apps') and resource ('apps') with the specific capability of handling multiple items in a single request. It distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_app_builder_app' which likely handles single deletions, though this distinction isn't explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_app_builder_app' for single deletions or other deletion tools. The description mentions bulk deletion but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes something, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately clear. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permanence, permissions), usage context, or what to expect after invocation. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more information is needed to guide safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by specifying that deletion is based on 'AuthN Mapping UUID', implying the UUID might be handled elsewhere (e.g., in the URL or context), which provides useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an AuthN Mapping specified by AuthN Mapping UUID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (like delete_api_key, delete_user, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes AuthN Mapping deletion distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the UUID), when not to use it, or what happens after deletion. With many sibling delete tools, context on usage is missing entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated data (like cases), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially confusing parameter mention (id) despite 0 parameters in the schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions using the project's 'id', which might imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this is potentially confusing. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is high as no parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a project'), specifying it uses the project's 'id'. This provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from other delete operations in the sibling list (like delete_cases, delete_monitor, etc.), though the 'project' specificity helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the project ID), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, including other delete operations, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation steps, or what happens to related data. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needed, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or confirmation requirements. The current description leaves too many critical questions unanswered for safe agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a single entity in Software Catalog'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_catalog_kind' or 'delete_cases_project' that also delete catalog-related resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_catalog_kind, delete_cases_project), there's no indication of what distinguishes this deletion operation from others or any prerequisites for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of associated entities), or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete') and resource ('a single kind in Software Catalog'), making it immediately understandable. No extraneous information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: what a 'kind' is in the Software Catalog, how to specify which kind to delete (since there are 0 parameters), what happens on success/failure, or any safety warnings. For a deletion tool, this leaves too many unknowns for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly suggests that the kind to delete must be identified elsewhere (e.g., in the tool name or context). Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—the description adequately conveys that no input is required beyond what's implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a single kind in Software Catalog'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_catalog_entity, delete_monitor), which would require specifying what a 'kind' is or how it differs from other catalog entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the kind first), consequences (e.g., whether deletion is permanent), or when not to use it (e.g., if the kind is in use). The sibling list includes create_catalog_kinds, suggesting a create-delete pair, but this relationship isn't explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'custom framework' refers to, the deletion's impact, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool in a security management context, more context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a custom framework' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (custom framework), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_cloud_security_management_resource_filters' or 'delete_security_monitoring_rule', which also delete different resources in the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the framework ID), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. Sibling tools include 'create_cloud_security_management_custom_frameworks' and 'update_cloud_security_management_custom_framework', but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Archive' without clarifying if this is reversible, permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It misses critical behavioral details for a mutation operation, though it correctly implies a write action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, consequences, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4.
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 'Archive a Cloud Cost Management Account' clearly states the action (archive) and resource (Cloud Cost Management Account). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_cost_aws_cur_configs' (plural) by implying a singular operation, though not explicitly contrasting with other deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_cost_aws_cur_configs' or other deletion tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Archive' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like data retention. No rate limits, confirmation prompts, or error conditions are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what archiving entails (e.g., data retention, recovery options), expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter details are needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4.
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 'Archive a Cloud Cost Management Account' clearly states the action (archive) and resource (Cloud Cost Management Account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_cost_aws_cur_config' and 'delete_cost_gcp_uc_config' by specifying Azure UC config, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_cost_aws_cur_config' or 'delete_cost_gcp_uc_config' is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for archiving.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., if it affects associated data). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation requirements, error conditions, or what 'specified' means in the absence of parameters. For a deletion tool, more context is needed to ensure safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('Custom Costs file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list, such as 'delete_cost_aws_cur_config' or 'delete_cost_gcp_uc_config', which target different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. Given the sibling tools include 'get_cost_custom_cost' and 'update_cost_custom_costs', some context on when deletion is appropriate would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource clearly. There's zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what 'current user' means (authentication context), how the specific key is identified (since there are no parameters), what the response contains, and any safety warnings. For a tool that permanently deletes a resource, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it correctly implies no parameters are needed (it doesn't mention any). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description aligns with the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an application key owned by current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar deletion tools for other types of keys (like 'delete_api_key' or 'delete_application_key'), which would require explicit sibling differentiation for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify which key to delete), warn about irreversible deletion, or differentiate from other key deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_application_key' vs. 'delete_current_user_application_key'). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a dashboard, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a dashboard') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: no information on permissions, irreversibility, error handling, or what happens post-deletion. For a tool that permanently removes data, this is inadequate and could lead to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'using the specified ID', which could imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add value or confusion. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a dashboard'), specifying it uses 'the specified ID'. This distinguishes it from other deletion tools that target different resources, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboards' (plural) or 'delete_dashboard_v1', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for single vs. bulk deletions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing dashboard ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'delete_dashboards' or 'delete_dashboard_v1' in the sibling list, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't state whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated dashboards, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with zero wasted words. For a simple deletion tool with no parameters, this level of conciseness is appropriate and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context such as how the target is specified, what happens to contained dashboards, whether confirmation is needed, or what the return value indicates. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies a singular deletion action without specifying parameters. However, it doesn't clarify how the dashboard list is identified (e.g., by ID, name, or context), which might be assumed but isn't explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a dashboard list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard' or 'delete_dashboard_public' by specifying 'dashboard list' rather than other dashboard-related resources. However, it doesn't specify whether this is a manual deletion process versus automated, which could be inferred from the tool name but isn't explicit in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify which dashboard list to delete), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other deletion tools like 'delete_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion (destructive action) but doesn't mention critical details like required permissions, whether deletions are reversible, confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete dashboards'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, reversibility), usage context, and any information about return values or errors. The agent would struggle to use this tool safely and effectively based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making it sufficient in this dimension. However, it doesn't explain how dashboards are identified for deletion (e.g., by ID, name, or all in the list), which is a minor omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('dashboards from an existing dashboard list'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_dashboard' or 'delete_dashboards', which appear to target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing dashboard list), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard_lists_manual' or 'delete_dashboards', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, front-loading the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is inadequate. It should address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, confirmation requirements, or what 'canceling a downtime' actually entails. The current description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which this meets.
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 'Cancel a downtime' clearly states the action (cancel) and resource (downtime), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'downtimes_cancel' which appears to serve the same purpose, leaving some ambiguity about tool differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without contextual help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., stopping event flows), or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should explain more about the deletion process, such as what constitutes a 'source', confirmation requirements, or error handling, to adequately guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine since there are none, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an Amazon EventBridge source' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Amazon EventBridge source). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_aws_logs' by specifying the EventBridge type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_aws_event_bridges'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing EventBridge source to delete, or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if the deletion is reversible, what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'tag filtering entry' is in context, what the deletion affects, or what confirmation or response to expect. The simplicity of the tool doesn't excuse the lack of critical behavioral context for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't have to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a tag filtering entry' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (tag filtering entry), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_aws_logs', but the specificity of 'tag filtering entry' provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_integration_aws, delete_integration_aws_logs), there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this specific deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a destructive action ('Delete'), but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the deletion is reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and mechanism. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no redundant or unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), required context (e.g., AWS account ID), or potential impacts. For a deletion tool, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete a Datadog-AWS logs configuration by removing the specific Lambda ARN associated with a given AWS account.' It specifies the verb ('Delete'), resource ('Datadog-AWS logs configuration'), and mechanism ('removing the specific Lambda ARN'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_aws_logs_services', which lowers it from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or compare it to related deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_integration_aws_logs_services' or 'delete_integration_aws'). This lack of contextual guidance makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but does not address critical aspects like required permissions, confirmation prompts, reversibility, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and target without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a deletion operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to cover behavioral aspects like safety warnings, confirmation needs, or response format, which are crucial for a destructive tool. The simplicity of the schema does not compensate for these missing contextual details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here as the tool likely operates on a pre-configured integration. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not contradict or add unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a given Datadog-Azure integration from your Datadog account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_gcp_account', which have similar naming patterns but target different integrations, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other delete_integration_* tools for different cloud providers or non-deletion options. It lacks context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying it is destructive, but does not specify permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover critical aspects like confirmation requirements, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and since there are none, it meets the baseline of 4 for not adding unnecessary details while being complete in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an STS enabled GCP account from within Datadog'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_azures', which handle similar deletions for other cloud providers, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other deletion tools for different integrations or contexts. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated workflows, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Workflows webhook handle' is, what the deletion affects, whether it's reversible, or what the response looks like. The context signals show this is a mutation tool, but the description lacks necessary behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a Workflows webhook handle from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling delete tools for other integration components, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context for deletion. While there are sibling tools for creating and updating similar handles, the description doesn't reference them or explain when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a service object, implying a destructive mutation, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., data loss, permissions required, confirmation steps, or error handling). This is a significant gap for a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a deletion operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), usage context, or what happens post-deletion, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a single service object in the Datadog Opsgenie integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_opsgenie_services' (plural) or 'get_integration_opsgenie_service', which could cause confusion about scope or alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other deletion tools for different resources or the corresponding 'get' or 'update' tools for Opsgenie services. It lacks context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated resources, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral consequences (e.g., permanence, side effects), required context (e.g., how to identify the service), and expected outcomes. The 0-parameter schema doesn't compensate for these gaps in behavioral disclosure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a single service object in the Datadog-PagerDuty integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_opsgenie_service' or 'delete_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels', which follow similar patterns for other integrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing service to delete), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_integration_aws' or 'delete_monitor').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects associated data, or what happens upon success/failure. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Delete' entails operationally, what confirmation might be needed, what gets removed, or what the response looks like. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Cloudflare account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integrations_confluent_cloud_account' or 'delete_integrations_okta_account', which follow the same pattern for different integration types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Cloudflare account integration), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical information such as confirmation prompts, error handling, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether deletion is immediate or queued). The agent would struggle to use this tool safely without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'with the provided account ID', which could imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add or detract value. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a Confluent account with the provided account ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources', which might handle different resource types within the same integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or consequences. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account' for verification or 'create_integrations_confluent_cloud_accounts' for creation, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it correctly indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, rate limits, or what happens to dependent resources. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete') and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Confluent resource' means, what types can be deleted, whether deletion is reversible, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The agent lacks critical context for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'resource id' and 'account ID' which might imply parameters, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't create confusion. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Confluent resource'), specifying it's for a particular account via account ID. It distinguishes from generic delete tools by mentioning 'Confluent' and 'account', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integrations_confluent_cloud_account'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions, or what happens after deletion. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. 'Delete' implies destructive, but no further context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent vs soft delete), what confirmation might be needed, or what the response looks like. The context signals show complexity is low (0 params), but the mutation nature demands more disclosure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, maintaining a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a Fastly account' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (Fastly account). It's specific enough to understand the basic function, though it doesn't distinguish from sibling delete tools like 'delete_integrations_fastly_account_services' which might target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when this deletion is appropriate versus other deletion tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated resources, or any rate limits/constraints. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needed, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, prerequisites, permissions, or consequences. The current description leaves too many unknowns for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a Fastly service for an account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar deletion tools in the sibling list (like 'delete_integrations_fastly_account'), leaving room for ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling deletion tools present (including 'delete_integrations_fastly_account'), there's no indication of when this specific service deletion tool is appropriate versus account-level deletions or other related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., breaking integrations), or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the action and target. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Deletes' and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permanence, permissions), error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. For a deletion tool in a complex integration context, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by specifying that the endpoint is identified by name ('<WEBHOOK NAME>'), which clarifies the target resource beyond what the empty schema indicates. This earns a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('endpoint with the name <WEBHOOK NAME>'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable', which would require mentioning it's specifically for webhooks rather than other configuration types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks' or 'get_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhook'. Usage is implied only by the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'archive' is in this context, what the deletion entails, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool that performs deletion, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, though it doesn't explicitly state that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a given archive from your organization'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (like delete_logs_config_archive_readers or delete_logs_config_custom_destination), so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no indication of what constitutes 'a given archive', and no reference to related tools like create_logs_config_archives or get_logs_config_archive that might be relevant. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), what 'specific' means (how to identify the destination), or any organizational constraints. The context signals show 0 parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific custom destination in your organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'delete_logs_config_indexe' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing to identify the destination first), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the behavioral implications of deletion (e.g., permanence, permissions, confirmation) or what happens after invocation. For a mutation tool, this level of detail is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific log-based metric from your organization'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'delete_logs_config_pipeline', which target different log configuration resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the metric ID), when not to use it (e.g., for non-log-based metrics), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metrics' for listing metrics before deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a deletion tool, implying destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or returns any output. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter situation. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on how the pipeline is specified (e.g., via ID in URL), what the response looks like, error conditions, or safety warnings. For such a tool, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which clarifies that no parameters are required beyond what might be in the URL or context. With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high, and this statement adds useful confirmation, though it doesn't explain how the pipeline is identified (e.g., via URL path).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a given pipeline from your organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., delete_logs_config_archive, delete_logs_config_indexe), which would require mentioning it specifically targets 'logs config pipelines'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing pipeline ID), when not to use it, or what happens after deletion. With many sibling tools including other delete operations, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., stopping notifications), or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the behavioral implications (permanence, side effects), success/failure responses, or usage context. The agent lacks sufficient information to invoke this tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (properties is empty), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description mentions 'by rule_id', which might imply a parameter, but since there are actually 0 parameters, this adds no value beyond the schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('a monitor notification rule'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like delete_monitor, delete_monitor_policy, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes notification rules different.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the rule_id), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. With many sibling deletion tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated monitors, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like permissions needed, confirmation requirements, side effects, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is applied as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a monitor configuration policy' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('monitor configuration policy'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_monitor' or 'delete_monitor_notification_rule' by specifying 'policy' rather than other monitor-related entities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a policy ID), conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. Given the sibling tools include various delete operations, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete a notebook', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Delete a notebook using the specified ID.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information given the context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, authentication needs, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that performs deletion, more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage, especially in a server with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'using the specified ID', which might imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add semantic value. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a notebook'), specifying it uses 'the specified ID'. This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebooks_delete' or 'delete_notebooks' that might exist in the list, though the name itself suggests uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_notebooks' or 'get_notebook'. With many sibling tools present, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, has side effects (e.g., impacting on-call schedules), or returns any output. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without any structural fluff, earning its place as a minimal yet clear statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format, leaving the agent without critical context needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, as there are no parameters to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an on-call escalation policy' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('on-call escalation policy'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_on_call_schedule', which might handle different resources, leaving room for slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or warnings mentioned, such as whether deletion is irreversible or requires specific permissions. This lack of context could lead to misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it fails to specify critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, confirmation prompts, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, achieving maximum efficiency without sacrificing clarity for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or confirmation requirements. The current description leaves too many open questions about how the deletion actually works in practice.
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 (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters, meeting the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an on-call schedule' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('on-call schedule'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_on_call_escalation_policy', but the resource specificity is sufficient for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' or 'get_on_call_schedule', leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is a deletion but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., breaking references), or returns confirmation. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety, permissions, return values, or how to identify the rule to delete, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description implies a 'specific' rule but doesn't clarify how specificity is achieved without parameters, which is slightly confusing. However, with no parameters, the baseline is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific WAF custom rule'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'delete_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filter', but the resource specificity is adequate for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for deletion. It lacks any context about dependencies, permissions, or what makes a rule 'specific' (e.g., identified by ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated resources, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words. For a simple deletion tool, this brevity is appropriate and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error handling, which are critical for safe invocation. The agent is left guessing about the operation's consequences and requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'using its identifier,' which might imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this is likely misleading rather than helpful. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's little room for improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific WAF exclusion filter'), which matches the tool name. It specifies the method ('using its identifier'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule' or 'delete_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule', which reduces clarity in a crowded namespace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the filter identifier), conditions for use, or what happens if the filter doesn't exist. In a server with many deletion tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a policy (implying a destructive mutation) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The US1-FED note adds some context but leaves major gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose clearly, the second adds a critical constraint. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what happens after deletion (confirmation? error handling?), required permissions, whether the policy must be in a specific state, or what 'specific' means. The US1-FED note is useful but doesn't compensate for these fundamental gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since zero parameters means the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific Workload Protection policy'), which matches the tool name. It's specific about what gets deleted, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like 'delete_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule' or 'delete_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a specific exclusion ('not available for the Government (US1-FED) site') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or what constitutes a 'specific' policy. The note about US1-FED is helpful but doesn't address core usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if the deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to the associated resource, or any rate limits/constraints. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'restriction policy' is, what 'associated with a specified resource' means in practice, what the deletion consequences are, or what (if anything) is returned. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'a specified resource' which implies some context for the deletion, but since no parameters exist in the schema, this doesn't add semantic value beyond what's already implied. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Deletes') and the target ('the restriction policy associated with a specified resource'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_restriction_policy' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other deletion tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_api_key, delete_dashboard), but no indication of when this specific deletion operation is appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Disables a role' implies a destructive mutation but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects existing assignments, or what the response looks like. For a zero-parameter destructive operation, this leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Disables a role.') that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'disables' means operationally, whether the action can be undone, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. Given the potential impact of disabling a role, more contextual information would help the agent understand the tool's behavior and consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input structure. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles all parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Disables a role' clearly states the verb ('disables') and resource ('a role'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_role_permissions' or 'delete_role_users' by focusing specifically on role disabling rather than related deletions. However, it doesn't specify whether 'disables' means soft deletion, archiving, or permanent removal, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., role must exist, user must have permissions), consequences (e.g., what happens to users assigned to the role), or when not to use it. Among many sibling tools with 'delete_' prefixes, it doesn't clarify if this is the primary role deletion method or if alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if the removal is reversible, what happens to users with that permission, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with security implications), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral traits, and there's no output schema. The description fails to address critical aspects like permissions required, side effects, or what the response contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies the tool operates on a predefined context (role and permission). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description aligns with the schema's simplicity.
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 'Removes a permission from a role' clearly states the verb ('removes') and resource ('permission from a role'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from general 'delete' operations by specifying the target relationship. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_role' or 'delete_role_users', which reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'delete_role', 'delete_role_users', and 'create_role_permissions', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this specific removal operation is needed versus deleting the entire role or modifying users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the removal is reversible, what happens to the user's access, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should provide more behavioral context about permissions, effects, and response format to help an agent understand the consequences of invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's appropriate given the schema completeness. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 'Removes a user from a role' clearly states the action (removes) and the target (user from a role). It's specific enough to understand the basic operation, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_role' or 'delete_role_permissions' which handle different deletion operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_role' (which deletes entire roles) or 'create_role_users' (which adds users to roles).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, confirmation prompts, side effects on related data, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and significant behavioral implications, the description is inadequate. It should address permanence, permissions, dependencies, and confirmation requirements to be complete. The current description provides only the basic purpose without necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed by not mentioning any. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an existing RUM application in your organization'), providing specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_rum_applications' and 'update_rum_application' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It doesn't mention when deletion is appropriate versus other operations on RUM applications, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_rum_application' for verification before deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a delete operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated data), or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a destructive delete operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling), permissions required, or how to identify the specific filter to delete, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a RUM retention filter for a RUM application'), which is specific and distinguishes it from non-delete operations. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools like 'delete_rum_application' or 'delete_rum_config_metric', which target different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing filter to delete), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'get_rum_application_retention_filters_v2'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a deletion operation (destructive), but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether confirmation is needed, what 'specific' means, or any error conditions. The context signals show this is a simple tool (0 params, no nested objects), but the destructive nature demands more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a specific rum-based metric from your organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_rum_application' or 'delete_rum_application_retention_filters', which target different RUM resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or what constitutes a 'specific' metric. With many sibling deletion tools, this lack of differentiation is problematic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., stopping notifications), or returns confirmation details. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a deletion operation (implied mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format, which are crucial for safe and correct usage. The zero-parameter schema doesn't mitigate this gap for a destructive action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are defined or required. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a notification rule for security vulnerabilities'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'delete_*' siblings in the list, such as 'delete_security_signals_notification_rule' or 'delete_monitor_notification_rule', which target different notification rule types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the rule ID), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., if the rule is active), or direct alternatives like 'update_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rule' for modification instead of deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation (destructive), but doesn't mention whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, if it requires confirmation, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'application key' refers to, what the consequences of deletion are, whether there are dependencies, or what the response looks like. The context demands more behavioral disclosure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an application key owned by this service account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_application_key' or 'delete_current_user_application_key', but the specificity about 'service account' ownership provides some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_application_key' or 'delete_current_user_application_key' (both present in sibling tools). There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to dependent resources, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'service definition', how to identify which one to delete, what the deletion consequences are, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of catalog operations and complete lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about this potentially impactful operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the action rather than parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a single service definition in the Datadog Service Catalog'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_catalog_entity' or 'delete_catalog_kind', which appear to target different resource types in the same catalog system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many other delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_catalog_entity, delete_catalog_kind) that likely target different resources, but the description doesn't explain what distinguishes a 'service definition' from other catalog entities or when this specific deletion tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should address critical behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions, or side effects. The current description is too minimal for a tool that permanently removes resources, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Synthetic private location'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_synthetics_variable' or 'delete_synthetics_tests', which are also deletion operations in the same domain, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a private location ID), when not to use it (e.g., if the location is in use), or what happens after deletion. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'removes all user-assigned tags for a single host,' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting monitoring or alerts). It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, earning a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation (deleting tags) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, nor does it explain what 'user-assigned tags' entails or how the host is identified. For a mutation tool in a context with many sibling tools, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as the description's lack of parameter info isn't a deficiency in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('remove all user-assigned tags') and the target ('for a single host'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_tags_host' and 'update_tags_host' by focusing on deletion, though it doesn't explicitly mention these siblings. The purpose is not tautological with the name, as it elaborates on what 'delete_tags' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., host existence, permissions), conditions for use, or what happens if no tags exist. While sibling tools like 'get_tags_host' exist for reading tags, the description fails to reference them or clarify when deletion is appropriate versus updating or creating tags.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Remove a team', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, impact on related data, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or safety warnings, making it inadequate for informed tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying that removal uses the team's 'id', which clarifies the implicit identifier needed, though this is minimal since no parameters are defined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a team'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_team_links' or 'delete_team_memberships', which also delete team-related resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_team_links' or 'delete_team_memberships'. It mentions using the team's 'id' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when deletion is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'link', how to identify which link to remove, what confirmation or response to expect, or any error conditions. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure (empty object). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no additional input is required beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 'Remove a link from a team' clearly states the action (remove) and target resource (link from a team). It's specific enough to understand the basic function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_team' or 'delete_team_memberships' which operate on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or comparison to sibling tools like 'update_team_links' or 'get_team_links_v2'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to the user's access, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Remove a user from a team.' Every word earns its place, with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Remove' entails (permanent deletion? temporary suspension?), what permissions are required, what confirmation might be needed, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of team membership management, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the action without unnecessary parameter details.
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 'Remove a user from a team' clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('user from a team'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_team' or 'delete_team_links', which reduces its effectiveness in a crowded toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or what happens after removal. With many sibling deletion tools in the list, the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for removing team memberships specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 indicates this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what the response format looks like, whether there are rate limits, whether it's a real-time or cached estimate, or what happens if the metric doesn't exist. The description mentions the technology ('Metrics without Limits™') but doesn't explain its implications for the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, reasonably concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary words. The trademark symbol adds minor clutter but doesn't significantly impact readability. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic purpose information. However, for a tool that returns estimated cardinality - which could involve complex calculations and specific constraints - the description should ideally address more behavioral context, especially since there's no output schema to indicate what the return value looks like. The mention of 'Metrics without Limits™' provides some technology context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what configuration elements are needed ('a given tag, percentile and number of aggregations configuration'), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints of these configuration elements.
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: 'Returns the estimated cardinality for a metric with a given tag, percentile and number of aggregations configuration using Metrics without Limits™.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('estimated cardinality for a metric'), and key configuration elements (tag, percentile, aggregations). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools, which include various analytics and metric-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'Metrics without Limits™' as the underlying technology, it doesn't specify when this estimation approach is appropriate compared to other metric query tools in the sibling list (like 'metrics_query_scalars', 'metrics_query_timeseries', or 'get_metric_tag_cardinalities'). There are no usage prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether it returns all keys at once (vs. paginated), requires specific permissions, includes rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, key fields), pagination behavior, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns sensitive data like API keys, more context on security or usage limits would be valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('API keys available for your account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_api_key' (singular) that might retrieve a specific key, though the sibling list shows both exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication level), differentiate from 'get_api_key' (singular retrieval), or indicate any constraints like pagination or filtering options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a single mapping by UUID, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It adequately explains the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, making it incomplete for effective agent use without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying that retrieval is based on 'AuthN Mapping UUID', clarifying the implicit identifier requirement, which is helpful despite the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'an AuthN Mapping specified by the AuthN Mapping UUID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_authn_mappings' (plural), which might retrieve multiple mappings, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_authn_mappings' for listing multiple mappings or other retrieval tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List all AuthN Mappings') and specifies the scope ('in the org'), making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what AuthN Mappings are, the return format, or any behavioral traits like ordering or limits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all AuthN Mappings in the org'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_authn_mapping' (singular) or 'create_authn_mappings', but the scope ('all') is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_authn_mapping' (singular) or 'search' tools. The description implies a bulk retrieval but doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions, or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a list', implying a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'entities' encompass. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entities' are, the format of the returned list, or any constraints like scope or permissions. For a tool with zero structured metadata, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of entities from Software Catalog', which specifies what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_catalog_kinds' or 'get_catalog_relations', which also retrieve catalog-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get a list' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary elaboration. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entity kinds' are, the format of the returned list, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured data support, more context is needed to guide effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids mentioning any, earning a baseline score for adequate coverage without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('entity kinds from Software Catalog'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_catalog_entities' or 'get_catalog_relations', but the resource focus is clear enough to infer differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_catalog_entities' and 'get_catalog_relations' available, it fails to specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entity relations' are, what format they're returned in, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of relations, more detail on the output and usage would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema and the schema handles the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('entity relations from Software Catalog'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_catalog_entities' or 'get_catalog_kinds', which also retrieve catalog data, leaving some ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_catalog_entities', 'get_catalog_kinds'), there's no indication of when relations are needed instead of entities or kinds, or any prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all Container Images') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination, auth needs) and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or scoping beyond 'your organization,' aligning with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Container Images'), specifying scope ('for your organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_containers' by focusing on images rather than containers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other image-related tools (none present).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all containers' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple 0-parameter input schema, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks critical context like return format, pagination, or organizational scope details, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or scoping parameters are required, aligning with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('containers'), specifying scope ('all containers for your organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_container_images' by focusing on containers rather than images, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other container-related tools that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'specified' means in practice. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what a 'Custom Costs file' is, how it's specified, what the return format looks like, or any error handling. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description mentions 'specified' which might imply some implicit specification, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is high. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch the specified Custom Costs file' clearly states the verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Custom Costs file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_custom_costs' (plural) or other cost-related tools, which would require more specificity for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including 'get_cost_custom_costs' and other cost-related tools), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions that would help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and explains the calculation basis, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a real-time vs cached analysis. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about the calculation basis. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from calculation methodology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simple input), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and calculation context. However, for a tool that presumably returns analysis data about cloud account security scanning coverage, the description doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., percentages, counts, recommendations) or how to interpret it. With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. It mentions the calculation basis ('based on the number of your Cloud Accounts that are scanned for security issues'), which provides context about what data influences the analysis, but this isn't parameter-specific information.
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: 'Get the CSM Coverage Analysis of your Cloud Accounts' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('CSM Coverage Analysis of Cloud Accounts'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cloud account coverage analysis rather than other CSM onboarding tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_hosts_and_containers' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_serverless'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these specific siblings in the description text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the calculation basis ('based on the number of your Cloud Accounts that are scanned for security issues'), but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other CSM coverage analysis tools like those for hosts/containers or serverless. There's no explicit 'when' or 'when not' 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, if it has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied read operation, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and how the analysis is calculated. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more integrated, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a report, metrics, or status), any prerequisites, or behavioral constraints. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct given the context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the CSM Coverage Analysis of your Hosts and Containers.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('CSM Coverage Analysis of Hosts and Containers'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_cloud_accounts' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_serverless', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what the analysis is calculated on ('based on the number of agents running on your Hosts and Containers with CSM feature(s) enabled'), but offers no context about when this specific coverage analysis is needed compared to other CSM onboarding coverage tools or general resource queries. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and explains the calculation logic, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a real-time vs cached analysis. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the calculation basis. Both sentences add value without redundancy. It could potentially be more front-loaded with key details, but there's minimal waste.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and calculation explanation. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention the return format (e.g., percentage, count, structured data) and any scope limitations. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.
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 (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description focuses on what the tool returns rather than input requirements.
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: 'Get the CSM Coverage Analysis of your Serverless Resources' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CSM Coverage Analysis of Serverless Resources'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Serverless Resources' rather than other resource types like 'cloud_accounts' or 'hosts_and_containers' found in sibling tool names, though it doesn't 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 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. While it mentions the calculation basis ('based on the number of agents running...'), it doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_cloud_accounts' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_hosts_and_containers'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, key fields), authentication needs, or any constraints. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids misleading or redundant information about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all application keys available for current user'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_application_keys' or 'get_current_user_application_key', which might retrieve different scopes or single items, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for listing keys for the current user, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, permissions, or contrast with similar tools like 'get_application_keys' (which might list all keys globally) or 'get_current_user_application_key' (which might retrieve a single key).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read-only operation ('Fetch') but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 0 parameters, the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks details on authentication, output format, error handling, or how to specify which dashboard list to fetch, making it incomplete for reliable agent use despite low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it implies the tool fetches a specific dashboard list without specifying how it's identified (e.g., by ID), slightly hinting at implicit context. Baseline 4 is correct for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('an existing dashboard list's definition'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single dashboard list rather than listing multiple or performing other operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar 'get' tools like 'get_dashboard_lists_manuals'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It mentions 'existing' but doesn't specify how to identify which dashboard list to fetch or differentiate from other retrieval tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with insufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Fetch' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the definitions are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dashboard definitions' include, how they're structured, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the expected output and any behavioral constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameter documentation is required.
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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('dashboard list’s dashboard definitions'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_lists_manual' or 'get_dashboards', which appear in the sibling list and might retrieve similar data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_lists_manual' or 'get_dashboards' that might serve similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Fetch') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the token is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Fetch' (verb), 'existing shared dashboard's sharing metadata' (resource), 'associated with the specified token' (context). There is zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (fetching sharing metadata), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., metadata structure), authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data about sharing, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds context by mentioning 'the specified token,' which suggests a token is involved, but since there are no parameters, this might imply the token is handled elsewhere (e.g., in authentication). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description provides adequate context for a parameterless tool.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('an existing shared dashboard's sharing metadata'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from general dashboard retrieval tools by focusing on sharing metadata associated with a token. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_public_invitation' which might handle similar sharing-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance, mentioning 'associated with the specified token' which implies a prerequisite token is needed. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (like 'get_dashboard' for general dashboard data), and no context about when this tool is preferred over siblings. This leaves the agent with insufficient decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns all allowlists or a filtered subset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple 0-parameter design, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the organization scope (e.g., current vs. specified), return format, or error conditions. For a retrieval tool, this leaves the agent without enough operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here since there are no parameters to explain. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters as per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('domain allowlist for an organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_ip_allowlists' or other get_* tools, but the resource specificity is adequate for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from similar tools like 'get_ip_allowlists' or other organizational retrieval tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all scheduled downtimes', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get all scheduled downtimes.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filters), authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool in a complex sibling set, more context would help the agent use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate given the schema completeness. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is required.
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 'Get all scheduled downtimes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('scheduled downtimes'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_downtime' (singular) by specifying 'all', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other downtime-related tools like 'downtimes_list' or 'create_downtimes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_downtime' (singular), 'downtimes_list', and 'create_downtimes', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the event details are returned in, or if there are any rate limits or error conditions. The description is too sparse for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and how to use it (via event_id), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the expected response format, or any error handling. While concise, it lacks the contextual depth needed for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so the description appropriately doesn't need to explain parameters. It mentions 'event_id' as the identifier, which is helpful context even though it's not a formal parameter. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of an event'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_events' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single event by ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other event-related tools beyond this implicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_event' over 'get_events' or 'search_events', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or permissions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the embed_id is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'HTML fragment' entails, potential error conditions, or return format, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully. More context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions `embed_id` as the identifier for retrieval, which aligns with the tool's purpose, but since there are no parameters, this is adequate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML fragment for a previously generated embed'), specifying it retrieves content using an `embed_id`. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_graph_embeds' or 'get_graph_embeds' by focusing on a single embed retrieval, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools for embeds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 implies usage when you have a specific `embed_id` from a previous generation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_graph_embeds' (which might list multiple) or other embed-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('List all...') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, such as what the returned list contains, any limitations, or how to handle the output. For a tool with no structured metadata, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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: 'List all Datadog-AWS integrations available in your Datadog organization.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('Datadog-AWS integrations'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_aws_event_bridges' or 'get_integration_aws_logs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools that might fetch specific types of AWS integrations or related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key technical detail (no arguments). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, output format, error handling) and usage guidelines, which are crucial even for simple tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more completeness to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'This endpoint takes no arguments,' reinforcing this point clearly. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adequately compensates with this confirmation, earning a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all namespace rules for a given Datadog-AWS integration.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('namespace rules'), and scope ('for a given Datadog-AWS integration'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as the sibling list includes many other 'get_' tools but none with similar naming that would cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'This endpoint takes no arguments,' which is a technical detail but does not indicate usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any when-to-use information, the agent lacks direction on appropriate scenarios for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope, limits). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, return format, or integration with siblings. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this is inadequate to guide an agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, and it implies no filtering or scoping parameters are needed, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all AWS tag filters'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration_aws_filterings' or 'delete_integration_aws_filterings' by focusing on retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for AWS tag filters, or any sibling tools that might be related, such as other AWS integration tools. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, meeting the ideal standard for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (fetching IAM permissions, which could involve security-sensitive data), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral traits, and there's no output schema to describe the return format. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'all' permissions entail (e.g., JSON list, policy documents) or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, and the description aligns with this by not mentioning any.
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: 'Get all AWS IAM permissions required for the AWS integration.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('AWS IAM permissions'), and context ('for the AWS integration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as there are no obvious direct alternatives in the sibling list for this specific permission-fetching function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an AWS integration must already be configured), use cases (e.g., for security auditing or setup verification), or exclusions. With many sibling tools for AWS integration management, the lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List all' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this returns all integrations at once (vs paginated), what format the output takes, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (array of objects? what fields?), whether results are paginated, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of integration configurations and the lack of structured output documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all Datadog-AWS Logs integrations'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get_integration_*' siblings like 'get_integration_aws' or 'get_integration_aws_logs_services', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_integration_aws' and 'get_integration_aws_logs_services', there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other integration-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. While it states the purpose clearly, it lacks context about when to use it, behavioral details, or what the output entails. For a tool in a complex integration context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('name of a Workflows webhook handle'), specifying it's from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration. It's specific enough to understand what the tool retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles' (plural), which might list multiple handles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., create or delete operations for webhook handles). It's a basic statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'a single service' means in terms of selection criteria (e.g., by ID or name). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters but likely requiring service identification), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to identify the service, what the return value includes, or any error handling. For a tool that presumably fetches specific data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single service from the Datadog Opsgenie integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_opsgenie_services' (plural) which likely retrieves multiple services, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting a specific service, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_integration_opsgenie_services' (plural) or 'create_integration_opsgenie_services'. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get a list') without mentioning any behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. While it states the basic purpose, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, response format) and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add any parameter details, which is appropriate here. The baseline score is 4 because the schema fully covers the parameters (none), 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.
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 a list') and resource ('all services from the Datadog Opsgenie integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_opsgenie_service' (singular) or other integration-related get tools, which slightly limits its clarity in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as filtering options, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_integration_opsgenie_service'. It lacks any context for usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no service exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. While concise, it lacks crucial context: what exactly is returned (e.g., a single service name, a list, or configuration details), error handling, or integration state requirements. For a tool that presumably retrieves integration data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('service name in the Datadog-PagerDuty integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_integration_pagerduty_configuration_service' or other integration-related tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_integration_pagerduty_configuration_services' or 'update_integration_pagerduty_configuration_service'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List Cloudflare accounts' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what constitutes a 'Cloudflare account' in this context. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('List Cloudflare accounts.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a listing operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., account IDs, names, statuses), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., maximum accounts returned). For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for listing. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Cloudflare accounts' clearly states the action (list) and resource (Cloudflare accounts), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_cloudflare_account' (singular) or other integration listing tools, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with similar tools like 'get_integrations_cloudflare_account' (singular) or other integration-related tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part of the sentence contributing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information the Confluent account contains, the response format, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns account details, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'provided account ID' which implies an input, but since there are no parameters in the schema, this doesn't add value or cause confusion. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Confluent account'), specifying it retrieves a specific account using an account ID. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_accounts' (plural) which likely lists multiple accounts, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what format the resource is returned in, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Confluent resource' entails, how the ID is provided, or what the return value looks like. For a tool that likely returns data, more context is needed despite the lack of structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description mentions 'the provided ID', which might imply an input, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't add value. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters as the schema already covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a Confluent resource for the account associated with the provided ID', which specifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Confluent Cloud account resources, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources_v2'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or provides any filtering/sorting capabilities. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'List Confluent accounts' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying what is being listed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Confluent accounts' are in this context, what data is returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely returns a list of accounts, more context about the return format or scope would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or add to non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Confluent accounts' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Confluent accounts'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Confluent' accounts rather than generic accounts, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Confluent-related tools like 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account' (singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'get_integrations_confluent_cloud_account' singular, 'create_integrations_confluent_cloud_accounts'), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for listing all accounts versus retrieving a specific one, or when to use it over other Confluent-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or provides error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about authentication needs, response format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more completeness would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented inputs. The description mentions 'for an account', which implicitly suggests an account context, but since there are no parameters, this adds minimal semantic value. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Fastly services for an account' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Fastly services for an account'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_account_services_v2_2' or 'create_integrations_fastly_account_services', which might handle different versions or operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing an account ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_integrations_fastly_accounts' or 'create_integrations_fastly_account_services'), leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'configured' means in practice. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'configured' means, what format the channel information is returned in, whether this returns a single channel or multiple channels, or any error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the version suffix (v1_2) and the integration context, more information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a channel configured for your Datadog-Slack integration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels_v1' or 'create_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels', which would require more specificity about version differences or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for Slack integration configuration (create, delete, update, and another get version), but no indication of when this specific v1_2 version should be used or what distinguishes it from other similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Gets the content', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'content' entails (e.g., configuration details, payload format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is minimal. It lacks context on what 'content' includes, how the webhook is identified, or the response format. For a tool that likely returns configuration data, more detail would help the agent understand the output, but the description doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions '<WEBHOOK_NAME>' as a placeholder, but since there are no actual parameters in the schema, this doesn't add or detract value. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('content of the webhook'), specifying it retrieves content for a named webhook. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhooks' or 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhook' by focusing on retrieval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools for webhooks (e.g., if there are multiple get variants).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable'. It assumes the user knows when retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('returns'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.' It's front-loaded with the core action, uses clear terminology, and contains no redundant words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'read roles' are, how they're structured in the response, or any dependencies (e.g., archive must exist). For a tool that likely returns structured authorization data, more context on the return format and usage constraints would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all read roles a given archive is restricted to.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('read roles'), and scope ('a given archive is restricted to'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_archives', which might handle different aspects of archive configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an archive ID), exclusions, or related tools for broader archive management. Given the sibling list includes many 'get_logs_config_archive*' tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which is useful for indicating no input parameters, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail about parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a retrieval tool with no parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks output schema, and with no annotations, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, response format, or error handling. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool confidently beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' reinforcing the parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description compensates adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a specific pipeline from your organization,' which clearly indicates a retrieval action (verb 'Get') on a resource ('pipeline') with a scope ('your organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_logs_config_pipelines' (plural) by implying retrieval of a single pipeline, though it could be more explicit about how specificity is achieved (e.g., via an identifier).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 'get_logs_config_pipelines' (likely for listing multiple pipelines) or other get-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which is useful but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical parameter information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'order' means, the format of the returned data, or any constraints. For a tool that likely returns configuration data, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which aligns with the input schema (0 parameters, 100% coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description adequately clarifies that no inputs are required, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current order of your pipelines'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_pipelines' by focusing on order rather than pipeline definitions. However, it doesn't specify what 'order' means in this context (e.g., execution sequence, priority).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, related tools like 'update_logs_config_pipeline_orders', or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'actively reporting metrics' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'actively reporting' means. The description is too sparse for a tool that likely returns dynamic data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It directly communicates what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'actively reporting metrics' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of metrics with temporal filtering, more details on scope, limitations, and output structure are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds context by implying a time-based query ('from a given time until now'), which is useful semantic information beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't specify how the time parameter is provided or its format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('list of actively reporting metrics'), and specifies a time constraint ('from a given time until now'). It distinguishes from generic 'get' operations by focusing on actively reporting metrics with temporal filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v2' or 'get_metric'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v2' or 'get_metric', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether authentication is required, what format the cardinality details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are any prerequisites for using this tool. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place in this concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cardinality details' means, what format the information is returned in, or provide any context about the metric selection mechanism. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help the agent understand what to expect from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('cardinality details of tags for a specific metric'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metric_tags' or 'get_metric_all_tags', which appear to be related but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that appear related to metrics and tags (like get_metric_tags, get_metric_all_tags, get_metric_volumes), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for retrieving tag cardinality information versus other tag-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'tag configuration' specifically entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a description that only states the basic purpose without behavioral details, this is incomplete. For a tool that presumably returns configuration data, the description should clarify what 'tag configuration' includes (e.g., assigned tags, cardinality limits) and any prerequisites, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description mentions 'for the given metric name,' which hints at a required input, but since parameters are explicitly documented as 0 in the schema, this doesn't create confusion. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('tag configuration for the given metric name'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metric_all_tags' or 'get_metric_tag_cardinalities' that also deal with metric tags, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to metric tags (e.g., 'get_metric_all_tags', 'get_metric_tag_cardinalities', 'update_metric_tags'), there's no indication of when this specific 'get_metric_tags' tool is appropriate versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves details without specifying what details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. It mentions 'from your organization' which implies some organizational context, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or has other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how the monitor is identified (contradicting the 'specified' claim with no parameters), or provide any behavioral context. The agent would struggle to understand what this tool actually returns or how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('specified monitor from your organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_monitor_by_id' or 'get_monitors', which could cause confusion about which tool to use for specific retrieval scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_monitor_by_id', 'get_monitors', or 'search_monitors'. It mentions 'specified monitor' but doesn't explain how the monitor is specified (since there are no parameters), leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'active downtimes' which adds some behavioral context (filtering by status), but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a potentially misleading parameter implication, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'active' means, how downtimes are returned (e.g., list format, fields), or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns operational data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying 'for the specified monitor', implying a monitor identifier is required, but since the schema shows no parameters, this might be misleading or indicate a mismatch. Given the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description attempts to clarify scope.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all active downtimes for the specified monitor'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_downtime' (singular) or 'downtimes_list', which might have different scopes or parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_downtime' (likely for a single downtime) and 'downtimes_list' (possibly broader), there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the rule_id doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'monitor notification rule' is, what data is returned, or any context about the retrieval operation. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more completeness is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'by `rule_id`', which might imply a parameter, but since the schema shows none, this could be misleading. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a monitor notification rule by `rule_id`.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), the resource ('monitor notification rule'), and the key input parameter. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_monitor_notification_rules' (plural) which likely returns multiple rules, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid rule_id), when-not scenarios, or point to related tools like 'get_monitor_notification_rules' for listing multiple rules. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns a list' but lacks details on pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Returns a list of all monitor notification rules.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about the return format (e.g., structure of the list, fields included), which would be helpful since there's no output schema. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. It correctly implies no filtering or options are needed to retrieve 'all' rules.
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: 'Returns a list of all monitor notification rules.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('monitor notification rules'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential siblings like 'get_monitor_notification_rule' (singular) or other list operations, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_monitor_notification_rule' for a single rule). It simply states what it does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely fetches sensitive configuration data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (likely a read operation fetching configuration data) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return format, or error conditions, which are crucial for effective use in an AI agent context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions `policy_id` to clarify the retrieval mechanism, adding context beyond the empty schema, which is helpful but minimal since there are no actual parameters to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a monitor configuration policy'), specifying it retrieves by `policy_id`. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_monitor' or 'get_monitor_policies' by focusing on a single policy via ID, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a valid policy_id or when to choose this over 'get_monitor_policies' for listing multiple policies, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all monitors') but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format is (e.g., list, paginated), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get all monitors') and specifies the scope ('from your organization'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, return format) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, making it incomplete for optimal agent usage in a rich toolset environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist and the schema is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all monitors from your organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_monitor' (singular) or 'list_monitors', which could retrieve monitors differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_monitor' (for a specific monitor), 'list_monitors', or 'search_monitors'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or organizational scope, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets all notebooks and can search, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds search functionality without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure), behavioral constraints, and error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of notebooks, this omission makes it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context or assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions a 'query' parameter for searching notebooks by name or author handle, which adds semantic value beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify the query format or any other optional parameters, but with 0 params, the baseline is high, and it provides useful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all notebooks' specifies the verb (get) and resource (notebooks). It also adds that it can search by query in name or author handle, which clarifies functionality beyond a simple list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_notebook' (singular) or 'notebooks_list', which might have similar purposes, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions search capability but does not specify when to prefer this over other search or list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'notebooks_list' or 'search_*' tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, return values, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'at a given time,' which implies a time parameter, but since there are no parameters in the schema, this doesn't add semantic value. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a team's on-call users'), indicating it retrieves on-call information for a team at a specified time. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_on_call_schedule_on_call' or other on-call related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks crucial context about behavior, return values, and operational constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, maintaining clarity without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a team's on-call routing rules'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on on-call routing rules, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_on_call_' tools like 'get_on_call_escalation_policy' or 'get_on_call_schedule'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with other on-call or team-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get a list of all powerpacks' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, sorting, what 'all' means (e.g., across all scopes or filtered), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns multiple items.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Get a list of all powerpacks.' There's no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameterless design, the description is minimal but inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'powerpack' is, what fields the list includes, whether it's paginated, or any authentication context. For a list operation that might return many items, more behavioral context is needed despite the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are available ('all powerpacks'). This is appropriate for a parameterless list operation.
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 'Get a list of all powerpacks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('powerpacks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_powerpack' (singular) or 'create_powerpacks', but the basic action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'get_powerpacks' (list all) versus 'get_powerpack' (get specific one) or other related tools like 'create_powerpacks' or 'update_powerpack'. The agent must infer usage from naming patterns alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's a read-only operation, which are critical for a tool fetching organizational data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what 'processes' entail, the return structure, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score above minimum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all processes for your organization'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hosts' or 'get_containers' that also retrieve organizational data, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools like 'search_resources' that might offer filtered process queries, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks context on how the rule ID is provided (e.g., in URL, headers), what the return value includes, or error conditions, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here as there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a WAF custom rule by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rules' (plural) which likely retrieves multiple rules, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a rule ID), when not to use it, or point to sibling tools like the plural version for listing rules, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve a list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a tool that likely interacts with security configurations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core action ('Retrieve a list'). Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security/WAF configuration tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what WAF exclusion filters are, what the returned list contains, or any prerequisites. For a tool in a security context with many sibling tools, more context is needed to help an agent use 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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't mislead about parameters (there are none) and the schema fully covers the empty input structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of WAF exclusion filters'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filter' (singular) or 'create_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filters', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rules, get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule), but no indication of when this specific list-retrieval tool is appropriate versus singular retrieval or other filtering options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a RUM application by ID but doesn't describe what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error response), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the RUM application') and includes the key constraint ('with given ID in your organization'), making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but functional. However, it lacks context about error handling, authentication needs, or what 'given ID' means (e.g., where it comes from). For a tool that likely interacts with organizational data, more behavioral context would be helpful despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making it adequate in this dimension. However, it could hint at how the ID is provided (e.g., via context or implicit input), but this is minor.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('RUM application with given ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_rum_applications' (plural) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', which might retrieve multiple applications or aggregated data instead of a single one by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid RUM application ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_rum_applications' (which might list all applications) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics' (which might provide analytics data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without explaining whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., single filter vs. list), or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is minimal. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., read-only nature, return format), context (e.g., when to use), and differentiation from siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a RUM retention filter for a RUM application'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_rum_application_retention_filters_v2' or explain the 'v2_2' suffix, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'get_rum_application_retention_filters_v2' or 'create_rum_application_retention_filters', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, or any pagination/rate limiting considerations. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what information is returned about RUM applications, the format of the response, or any organizational context needed. Given the complexity of RUM applications and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('RUM applications'), specifying scope ('all' and 'in your organization'). It's specific enough to understand the basic operation, though it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_rum_application' (singular) or 'search_rum_events'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or comparison to sibling tools like 'aggregate_rum_analytics' or 'search_rum_events'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes 'details' in the response. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of security monitoring configurations and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how suppression rules are identified, or what the response format looks like. For a tool that likely returns structured data about security rules, more context is needed to understand its full scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description implies retrieving details for 'a specific suppression rule,' which suggests an identifier might be needed, but since there are no parameters documented in the schema, the description doesn't need to compensate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific suppression rule'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' (plural) or 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_rule', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific singular retrieval tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' (likely for listing multiple rules) and 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions_rule' (potentially similar), there's no indication of when this specific 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppression' tool is appropriate versus those other retrieval options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a conversion, implying a read-only or transformation operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, modifies data, or has side effects (e.g., saving the Terraform output). The description lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('convert') and specifies the resource and target format clearly. There is no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving format conversion) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how the conversion works, what the output looks like (e.g., Terraform code string), or any dependencies. For a conversion tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description implies the tool converts 'an existing rule from JSON', suggesting it might operate on implicit or context-based input (e.g., a rule ID or JSON content), but doesn't specify how this input is provided. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description could be more explicit about input requirements.
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: converting an existing rule from JSON to Terraform for the datadog provider resource 'datadog_security_monitoring_rule'. It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('existing rule'), and target format ('Terraform'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_rules_converts' or 'get_security_monitoring_rule', which might handle similar conversions or retrievals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing JSON rule), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'create_security_monitoring_rules_converts' or 'get_security_monitoring_rule'. Without this context, an agent might struggle to select the correct tool for conversion tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any rate limits. It lacks crucial context about the operation's scope and constraints that would help the agent use it correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (structure, fields), whether it's paginated, if there are filtering options, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity of notification rules and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input (empty object). The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of notification rules for security vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on security vulnerabilities notification rules rather than other notification rule types like security signals or monitors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools beyond the resource specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or comparison to similar tools like get_security_signals_notification_rules or get_monitor_notification_rules. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter design, the description is minimal. It lacks context on what 'Get' entails (e.g., single vs. multiple keys, authentication needs, or return format), making it incomplete for effective agent use despite low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. Baseline 4 is suitable for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('an application key owned by this service account'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_account_application_keys_v2_2' or 'get_application_key', leaving some ambiguity about scope or version differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get' tools for application keys or service accounts. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but fails to mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, key details) or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a read operation with no structured metadata, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for this scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all application keys available for this service account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_account_application_keys_v2' or 'create_service_account_application_keys', which could cause confusion in selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get' tools for service accounts or application keys. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is likely safe and non-destructive, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a catalog system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving a service definition from a catalog, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on how the service definition is identified (e.g., by ID or name), what the output contains, and any system-specific behaviors. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary detail while aligning with the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single service definition from the Datadog Service Catalog'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_services_definitions' (plural) or 'create_services_definitions', leaving room for minor confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., how to identify the service definition to retrieve), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_services_definitions' for multiple definitions), or specify any contextual constraints, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets a list' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no SLOs exist. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality ('Get a list').
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 read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'service level objective objects' contain, the return format, or any organizational scope constraints. While simple, it lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand what will be returned or how to interpret the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('service level objective objects'), specifying it returns a list for the organization. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_slo' (singular) and 'search_slos', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'slos_list' which appears to be a similar list operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_slos' or 'slos_list'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or any context for choosing this specific list operation over others available in the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently state the parameter requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves location data (which could involve permissions, formatting, or scoping), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to effectively use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly states 'No arguments required,' which adds value beyond the empty input schema (which has 100% coverage). This clarifies that the tool requires no parameters, preventing the agent from attempting to pass unnecessary inputs. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets this by confirming the parameterless nature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of public and private locations available for Synthetic tests'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_settings_default_locations' or 'get_synthetics_private_location', which could provide overlapping or related location information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools that might retrieve similar or more specific location data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters but no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., cap value, units, format) or any behavioral context, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('on-demand concurrency cap'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'synthetics settings' refers to or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_settings_default_locations' or 'get_synthetics_tests', which would require examining the sibling list for context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_settings_on_demand_concurrency_caps' or other synthetics-related get tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'last 150 test results summaries,' which implies read-only behavior, but fails to disclose critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the summaries. This leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving test results (which may involve data formats, pagination, or filtering), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it lacks completeness. The agent would struggle to understand the full context of use and response handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters to document, this is acceptable. It implies the tool operates on a specific test, but without parameters, this is more about context than semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('last 150 test results summaries for a given Synthetic API test'), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1' or 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1_2', which might serve similar purposes, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other test result retrieval tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., across all workspaces). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of test objects with fields), any limitations (e.g., max results), or behavioral context. For a read operation with no structured metadata, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is fine since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema handles everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all Synthetic tests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_synthetics_tests' or 'get_synthetics_test_v1', but the basic action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_synthetics_tests' (which might allow filtering) or 'get_synthetics_test_v1' (which might fetch a single test), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what is retrieved, not behavioral aspects. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens if no test exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving test configurations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, or scope (e.g., all tests vs. specific ones). For a tool that likely returns detailed data, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration of a Synthetic browser test'), specifying it includes steps. It distinguishes from generic 'get_synthetics_tests' by focusing on browser tests, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other browser-related tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or compare to sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full result' entails (e.g., structured data, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a specific full result from a given Synthetic browser test.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool for retrieving synthetic test results), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to identify the 'given' test, what 'full result' includes, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implies a 'given Synthetic browser test' is required, which could be confusing since no parameters are defined. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific full result from a given Synthetic browser test.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('full result'), and scope ('from a given Synthetic browser test'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1_2' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1', which appear to serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a test ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'last 150 test results summaries,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the summaries. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get the last 150 test results summaries') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving test results (which may involve data retrieval and summarization), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to provide safety or behavioral hints, and there is no output schema to describe return values. The description lacks details on result format, error conditions, or any constraints, making it inadequate for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies a 'given Synthetic browser test' as context, but does not specify how this is provided (e.g., via path or query), leaving minor ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('last 150 test results summaries for a given Synthetic browser test'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1_2', which appear to be similar, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific test ID or browser test context, nor does it compare it to sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1_2' for different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed configuration' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loaded with the key action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed configuration' includes, how the variable is identified (since there are no parameters), or what the return format looks like. For a tool that presumably retrieves specific data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here since there are none to describe. A baseline of 4 is given as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration of a global variable'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_variables' (plural) or 'create_synthetics_variables', leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_synthetics_variables' (likely listing multiple) and 'create_synthetics_variables', the description offers no context on whether this tool retrieves a single variable by ID, name, or other criteria, or how it differs from other get operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying safety, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly in real scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions using the team's 'id', which is useful context even though it's not a formal parameter in the schema. This adds marginal semantic value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single team'), specifying it uses the team's 'id' for retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_teams' (plural) by emphasizing 'single team', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other team-related tools like 'create_teams' or 'update_team'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a team ID), when not to use it, or direct alternatives like 'get_teams' for listing multiple teams. The description assumes the user already knows when to fetch a single team.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all links' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'all links' encompasses (e.g., types of links, scope). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool is under-specified. While it's a simple read operation with no parameters, the description doesn't explain what 'links' are, how they're returned, or any limitations. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. However, it mentions 'for a given team' which might imply a team parameter, but this isn't reflected in the schema, creating slight ambiguity.
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 'Get all links for a given team' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (links for a team), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team_links_v2_2' or 'create_team_links', leaving room for ambiguity about version differences or when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools including 'get_team_links_v2_2' (likely a similar tool) and 'create_team_links', there's no indication of differences, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions pagination but omits details on response format, error conditions, and authentication needs. For a tool that likely requires team context and returns structured data, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned implicit parameters like team identifier if required. Baseline is 4 due to no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('paginated list of members for a team'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_memberships' or 'get_teams', which could cause confusion in selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, when it's appropriate compared to other membership-related tools, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'all permission settings' entails (e.g., format, scope, or pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of retrieving permission settings (which could involve sensitive data or varied formats), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none are needed. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all permission settings for a given team'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_team' or 'get_permissions', which might retrieve different team-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_team', 'get_permissions', 'get_team_memberships'), there's no indication of when this specific permission-focused retrieval is appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive, but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., user object fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get a user'), and no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is minimal. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, response format) that would help an agent use it correctly, making it incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying the user is identified by 'user_id', though this is implied by the tool name. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a user'), specifying it's for a user in the organization identified by 'user_id'. It's specific but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_users' (plural) or 'get_user_invitation', which might retrieve multiple users or related entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_users' for listing multiple users or 'get_user_invitation' for invitation details, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has any rate limits. It mentions optional filters but doesn't explain how they work (e.g., exact match vs. partial). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List dashboards') and adds optional details ('with optional name/tags filters'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it communicates the essential information in minimal words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a list operation with potential filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and a schema that shows 0 parameters (contradicting the description's mention of filters), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error conditions, or how the optional filters are implemented. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'optional name/tags filters,' which suggests filtering capabilities, but since the schema shows no parameters, this might be misleading or indicate that filters are handled differently (e.g., via query parameters not in the schema). Given zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description adds some context about filtering despite the schema contradiction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('dashboards'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filters ('name/tags filters'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_monitors' or 'get_dashboards', which appear to serve similar purposes for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific scenarios. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is the primary way to retrieve dashboards or if there are other list/get tools with different filtering capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List monitors' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. 'Common filters supported' suggests some filtering capability but doesn't detail what those filters are or how they work.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words ('List monitors (common filters supported)'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds clarifying information in parentheses. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is insufficient. While concise, it doesn't explain what 'monitors' are in this context, what format the listing returns, whether authentication is required, or how the 'common filters' work given the empty parameter schema. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this listing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'common filters supported' which might imply filtering capabilities, but since the schema shows no parameters, this creates some ambiguity. However, with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('monitors'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_monitors' or 'get_monitors', which appear to serve similar listing/searching functions. The mention of 'common filters supported' adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate it from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_monitors', 'get_monitors', and 'get_monitor_by_id' available, there's no indication of when this listing tool is preferred over those search or retrieval tools. The mention of 'common filters supported' hints at some capability but doesn't clarify 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. 'Mute' implies a state change, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what 'mute' entails (e.g., silencing alerts, disabling notifications), whether it's reversible, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'mute' means operationally, what happens after invocation, or how to identify 'the specified monitor' (e.g., via context or prior calls). More context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the context. A baseline of 4 is assigned since no parameters exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('mute') and the resource ('the specified monitor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mute_monitor_v1' or 'mute_host', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool over alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 'mute_monitor_v1' or 'mute_host', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, has confirmation prompts, or returns any output. For a zero-parameter deletion tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the tool identifies which test to delete (e.g., via context or implicit selection), what happens post-deletion, or error conditions. For a deletion operation, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly suggests the tool might operate on a pre-selected test or require context. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as the schema already covers everything.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a Synthetics test' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Synthetics test'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'synthetics_create_test' and 'synthetics_update_test' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a test ID), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it (e.g., for temporary disabling). With siblings like 'synthetics_list_tests' and 'synthetics_get_test', the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which clarifies the input format but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'unmutes'), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, what happens if the host isn't muted, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the input format. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error conditions), how the host is specified, and what the tool returns. While the parameter aspect is covered, the overall context for safe and correct invocation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' reinforcing that no inputs are needed. This compensates adequately, though it doesn't explain how the host is identified (e.g., via URL path or context), which might be a minor gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unmutes a host' clearly states the verb ('unmutes') and resource ('a host'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mute_host' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention other host-related tools in the list. The description is specific but could be more differentiated from other host management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the host must be muted first), conditions for unmuting, or related tools like 'mute_host' or 'mute_monitor'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Unmute' implies a state change operation, the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the monitor is already unmuted, whether the change is reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'unmute' means operationally, what permissions are required, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of monitor management systems, more context is needed for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed by stating 'the specified monitor' without mentioning any inputs. This meets the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Unmute') and the resource ('the specified monitor'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unmute_monitor_v1' or 'unmute_host', leaving some ambiguity about which unmute operation to use in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools with similar unmute functionality (unmute_monitor_v1, unmute_host), but no indication of which to choose or any prerequisites for using this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 an API requirement (registered application key), which adds some context about authentication. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as what fields can be updated, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or response format, which are critical for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a key requirement. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what an 'Action Connection' is, what updates are possible, expected outcomes, or error conditions, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Action Connection'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_actions_connections' or 'delete_actions_connection', which would require explicit comparison for a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete actions connections). It mentions an API requirement but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'scan options' specifically entail. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information (update operation on agentless scanning accounts). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scan options' are, what 'activated account' means, what the update actually changes, or what the response looks like. For a tool that modifies configuration, more context about the behavior and outcome is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information, and it correctly implies this tool operates on some implicit context (an 'activated account') rather than explicit inputs. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('Agentless scan options for an activated account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_integration_aws' or 'update_monitor', which would require mentioning what makes this particular update operation unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., what constitutes an 'activated account'), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from related tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' or 'delete_agentless_scanning_accounts_aw' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool returns the updated metric object, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, error conditions, or how 'specific' is determined (e.g., by ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (update operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'specific' metric (how identification works), what fields can be updated, what permissions are required, or potential side effects. The return statement is helpful but insufficient for a mutation operation in a complex system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a specific span-based metric from your organization'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_apm_config_retention_filter' or 'update_logs_config_metric', which would require explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling update tools (e.g., update_apm_config_retention_filter, update_logs_config_metric), but the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or when this specific metric update tool is appropriate versus other configuration updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Re-order'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It should provide more context on how the re-ordering works, what the outcome is, and any constraints, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Re-order') and the target ('execution order of retention filters'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_apm_config_retention_filter' or 'create_apm_config_retention_filters', which limits its clarity in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 that updating 'creates a new version of the app,' which hints at versioning behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the previous version. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's action and a key behavioral note (version creation). There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating an app (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields can be modified, the response format, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. It doesn't contradict or compensate unnecessarily, earning a score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing app') and specifies the resource ('app'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from 'create_app_builder_apps' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the app can be updated, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app ID), nor does it differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'update_app_builder_app_deployment'). There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, is reversible, has side effects, or what the response looks like. No rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions are mentioned, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update the status') and specifies the resource and allowed values. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Azure config' refers to, how the target config is identified, what the default status is, or what happens upon update. For a status-changing tool, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies the tool operates without explicit inputs, likely targeting a specific config contextually. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('status of an Azure config'), specifying the allowed status values (active/archived). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_cost_azure_uc_configs' and 'delete_cost_azure_uc_config' by focusing on status updates rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'update_' tools that might modify different aspects of Azure configs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing config), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other update operations on Azure configs. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Create a new budget or update an existing one' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full replacements, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, and every word earns its place by clarifying the dual create/update functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'budget' entails in this context, what data might be returned, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. No additional parameter information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create' or 'update') and resource ('budget'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes between creating new budgets and updating existing ones, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'update_cost_aws_cur_config' that might handle related but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for creating and updating various resources, there's no indication of whether this is for general cost budgets versus specific cloud provider budgets, or any prerequisites for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Upload' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'upload') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Custom Costs file' is, how to provide it, what the upload does (e.g., replaces existing data), or what to expect in return. For a tool that likely modifies cost data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'a Custom Costs file', which hints at an implied file input, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add value beyond the structured data. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 'Upload a Custom Costs file' clearly states the action (upload) and the resource (Custom Costs file), making the tool's purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'create_cost_custom_cost' or 'delete_cost_custom_cost', but the verb 'upload' implies a file operation rather than creation/deletion of a configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, file format requirements, or when this upload might be needed versus other cost-related tools like 'update_cost_budgets' or 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key information ('Edit an application key') and adds necessary qualification ('owned by current user'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the parameter count is zero, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, especially compared to other update tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. However, it doesn't explain why there are no parameters (e.g., if editing is done via some other mechanism), which slightly limits completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and resource ('an application key owned by current user'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_current_user_application_keys' and 'delete_current_user_application_key' by specifying editing rather than creating or deleting. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the key can be edited (e.g., name, permissions), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing key to edit), nor does it differentiate from similar update tools for other resources like 'update_application_key' or 'update_service_account_application_keys'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While concise, it lacks necessary context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is given as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('the name of a dashboard list'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards', which would require mentioning what makes this specific to dashboard list names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing dashboard list ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_lists_manuals' or other update operations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this overwrites or merges with existing allowlists, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (replace, add, remove?), what format the allowlist should be in, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The context signals show this is a potentially significant operation that needs more 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't contradict this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('domain allowlist for an organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'update_ip_allowlists' that might exist in the broader context, though no direct sibling with similar name is listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'get_domain_allowlists' or other allowlist management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'update' and 'move an issue between states', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: it states the purpose upfront and provides a usage hint. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying that the update is done 'by `issue_id`' and involves moving between states like 'OPEN', 'RESOLVED', or 'IGNORED', which clarifies the tool's semantics beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the state of an issue by `issue_id`' with specific examples of states like 'OPEN', 'RESOLVED', or 'IGNORED'. It includes a verb ('update'), resource ('issue'), and scope ('state'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_error_tracking_issue_assignee'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Use this endpoint to move an issue between states...' which implies usage but lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what aspects can be updated, whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. It provides minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails (which fields/settings), what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond knowing it exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a Datadog-Amazon Web Services integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_integration_azures' or 'update_integration_gcp_account', which follow the same pattern for different cloud providers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing integration to update), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other AWS-related tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'delete_integration_aws'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Generate' implies a creation/mutation action, the description doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, affects existing integrations, or what the output looks like (e.g., a new external ID string). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Generate a new AWS external ID') and includes the necessary context ('for a given AWS account ID and role name pair'). Every part of the sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation for AWS integrations), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output (e.g., what the new external ID looks like, how to use it), prerequisites, or side effects. For a tool that likely involves security-sensitive operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description mentions 'for a given AWS account ID and role name pair', which might imply these are required inputs, but the schema indicates no parameters. This creates a slight mismatch, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but that's acceptable here.
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 ('Generate a new AWS external ID') and specifies the target ('for a given AWS account ID and role name pair'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_integration_aws' or 'update_integration_aws', which might handle broader integration setup rather than just external ID generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an AWS integration must already exist), typical scenarios (e.g., rotation of credentials), or what other tools might be related (like 'create_integration_aws' for initial setup). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what fields can be updated, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with clear subject-verb-object structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'STS enabled' means, what aspects of the service account can be updated, what authentication is required, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't create confusion about nonexistent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an STS enabled service account'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_integration_aws' or 'update_integration_azures', which would require mentioning what specifically gets updated about GCP accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing GCP account to update), nor does it differentiate from other GCP-related tools like 'create_integration_gcp_accounts' or 'delete_integration_gcp_account' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the operation actually modifies. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and clearly states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'tenant-based handle' is, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though the schema is empty). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent ones. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a tenant-based handle from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handle' or other update tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' or 'delete_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handle'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by specifying the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, what the expected outcome is, or any side effects). For a tool that modifies integration services, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a single service object in the Datadog Opsgenie integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools (like update_integration_aws or update_integration_pagerduty_configuration_service), which would require mentioning what specifically gets updated about the service object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing service to update), when-not-to-use scenarios, or refer to related tools like create_integration_opsgenie_services or delete_integration_opsgenie_service for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what gets updated (e.g., settings, credentials), permissions required, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified), behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'provided account ID,' which hints at a required identifier, but since there are no parameters, this is slightly confusing. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but the mention adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('Confluent account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_integrations_confluent_cloud_account_resources' or other integration update tools, missing specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing account ID), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'create_integrations_confluent_cloud_accounts' or 'delete_integrations_confluent_cloud_account'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, what happens if the service doesn't exist, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should explain what 'update' entails (e.g., what fields can be updated, whether it's a partial or full update), what authentication is required, and what the response looks like. The current single sentence is inadequate for a tool that modifies infrastructure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('a Fastly service for an account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_integrations_fastly_account' or other integration update tools, which would require mentioning what specifically gets updated about the service.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling update tools (e.g., update_integrations_fastly_account, update_integration_aws), but no indication of when this specific Fastly service update is appropriate versus other integration updates or versus creating/deleting Fastly services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is destructive/reversible, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should provide more context about what 'Update' entails—such as what fields can be updated, whether this requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. The current single sentence is inadequate for guiding an agent on using this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameters (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter burden to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a channel used in your Datadog-Slack integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels' or 'delete_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels', which would be necessary for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing channel configuration), when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions editing entries and enabling/disabling, implying mutation, but fails to describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing entries. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like permissions, reversibility, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation. The description does not compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.
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 specific verbs ('Edit', 'enable or disable') and identifies the resource ('IP allowlist entries'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on IP allowlist management, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar update tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to fields not mentioned, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'custom destination' means in this context, what fields can be updated, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively despite the simple parameter situation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'given fields' which implies field-level updates, but since there are no actual parameters, this is adequate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('given fields of a specific custom destination'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'update_logs_config_archive' or 'update_logs_config_metric', which follow similar patterns for different log configuration resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing custom destination), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling tool list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether tags are replaced or merged, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the action and resource. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., how tags are updated, permissions, response) and doesn't reference sibling tools for context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('tags for a device'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_ndm_tags_device' (read) and 'update_tags_host' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly mention the 'ndm' context from the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device existence), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'get_ndm_tags_device' for reading tags or 'update_tags_host' for different resources, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing routing rules, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context: what routing rules are, how they're specified, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. The agent would be left guessing about the tool's behavior and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the empty schema already indicates.
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 'Set a team's on-call routing rules' clearly states the action (set) and resource (team's on-call routing rules). It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_on_call_escalation_policy' or 'update_on_call_schedule' which might handle related but different on-call configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'update_on_call_escalation_policy' and 'update_on_call_schedule' present, there's no indication of how routing rules differ from escalation policies or schedules, nor any prerequisites or context for when this specific update operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs an update (implying mutation) and returns the filter object, but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, the second specifies the return value. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as authentication requirements, side effects, error handling, or what the 'identifier' refers to. The return statement is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate (not 5 because it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a specific WAF exclusion filter using its identifier'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule' or 'update_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule', which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an identifier), when-not-to-use scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filters' or 'delete_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filter' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what fields can be updated. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It should provide more context about what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, expected response, or error conditions). The current description is too minimal for a tool that modifies resources.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the parameters (none exist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('RUM application with given ID in your organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_rum_application_relationships_retention_filters' or 'update_rum_application_retention_filters', which are also update operations on RUM applications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing RUM application ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_rum_applications' or 'delete_rum_application'. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a signal to an incident, implying a mutation operation, but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Add a security signal to an incident') followed by the benefits. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation linking security signals to incidents), the description is incomplete. No annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details are provided, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency and response expectations. The description alone does not suffice for safe and effective tool invocation in a security context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since the tool likely operates on implicit or context-dependent inputs. With zero parameters, the baseline is high, and the description avoids unnecessary detail, earning a score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a security signal to an incident') and the resource involved ('security signal', 'incident'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_security_monitoring_signal_incidents' or 'incidents_update', which might handle similar operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the benefits ('makes it possible to search for signals by incident and view them on the timeline'), which implies usage for linking signals to incidents for better visibility. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other incident or signal update tools), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the previous assignee. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after modification, what format the security signal identifier should be in, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of security monitoring operations, more context is needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information beyond what's already covered, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 ('Modify') and resource ('triage assignee of a security signal'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on security signal assignee modification rather than other update operations like state or incident updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from similar tools like 'update_security_monitoring_signal_state' or 'update_security_monitoring_signal_incidents' that also modify security signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what fields can be edited. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'Edit' entails (e.g., which fields are editable), behavioral context, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies application keys, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and resource ('an application key owned by this service account'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_application_key' or 'update_current_user_application_key', which appear to handle similar resources but for different owners.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the service account ID or key identifier), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_service_account_application_keys' or 'delete_service_account_application_keys' for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails, what fields can be edited, how to identify the test to edit, or what happens after editing. Given the complexity implied by 'Synthetic browser test' and lack of structured data, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are zero parameters to explain.
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 ('Edit') and the resource ('configuration of a Synthetic browser test'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile' or 'update_synthetics_test_v1', which appear to be similar update operations for different test types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing test ID), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile' or general test update tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Edit' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Edit' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), success/failure conditions, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic intent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param details, but that's unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the (nonexistent) parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('configuration of a Synthetic Mobile test'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_tests_mobiles' (creation) and 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' (different test type), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing test ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'update_synthetics_test_v1', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits - no information about required permissions, whether changes are destructive, what happens to existing configurations, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' means, what fields can be edited, what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. Given the complexity implied by 'Synthetic API test' and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit') and target resource ('configuration of a Synthetic API test'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile', which appear to be related Synthetic test update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for updating Synthetic tests (browser, mobile, status, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for general API test configuration or how it differs from other update operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Patch' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full update implications). The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: it's a patch operation for Synthetic test configuration using partial data. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema (suggesting body parameters may be defined elsewhere), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'partial data' means in practice, what fields can be updated, authentication requirements, or expected response format. The agent lacks sufficient information to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema). The description adds value by clarifying this is a 'patch' operation with 'partial data', suggesting the tool likely uses a request body not captured in the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description provides useful semantic context about the operation type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Patch') and resource ('configuration of a Synthetic test'), specifying it operates with 'partial data'. This distinguishes it from a full replacement update. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile', which target specific test types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing test ID), when partial updates are appropriate versus full replacements, or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list like 'update_synthetics_test_v1' or 'synthetics_update_test'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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. 'Edit' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Edit') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like what 'edit' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified), behavioral constraints, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable given the schema completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edit a Synthetic global variable' clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('Synthetic global variable'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_variables' or 'delete_synthetics_variable', which would require more specificity about what 'edit' entails versus 'create' or 'delete'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing variable to edit), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_variables' or 'delete_synthetics_variable', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: that when 'team_links' is present, it reorders links and removes existing ones not in the array. However, it doesn't mention other critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, what fields can be updated, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral information about team_links handling. There is zero wasted language, and both sentences earn their place by providing distinct, valuable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions one specific behavior (team_links handling) but doesn't cover what other team properties can be updated, what permissions are required, what the response contains, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies team data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain non-existent parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update a team') and specifies the required identifier ('using the team's `id`'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_team_links' or 'update_team_memberships', which appear to handle more specific team-related updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'team_links' relationship behavior, but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to other team-related update tools (like update_team_links, update_team_memberships, or update_team_permission_settings) or create/delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing attributes not mentioned. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at what is returned, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. However, it doesn't explain why there are no parameters (e.g., if parameters are implied or handled elsewhere), which slightly limits completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a user's membership attributes on a team'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_team' or 'update_team_links', which also modify team-related resources, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing team or user IDs), when-not-to-use scenarios, or refer to related tools like 'create_team_memberships' or 'delete_team_memberships' for other membership operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an authentication requirement (registered application key), which is useful context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what fields can be updated, whether the update is idempotent or reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds essential authentication context. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It misses details like what the update entails (e.g., fields modifiable), expected response format, error conditions, or dependencies. The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying an ID is required ('by ID'), which aligns with the tool name, though this is minimal. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a workflow by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_workflows' and 'delete_workflow' by focusing on modification, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an authentication requirement but doesn't specify prerequisites like having an existing workflow ID, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_workflow' for verification or 'create_workflows' for initial setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation into 'buckets of computed metrics and timeseries,' which implies a read-only analytical operation, but doesn't specify whether this is a heavy computation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('aggregate') and resource ('CI Visibility test events'), making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., computation intensity, permissions) and return format. For an aggregation tool that likely produces structured analytics data, more context on output expectations would be helpful, though the absence of parameters simplifies the overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.
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: 'aggregate CI Visibility test events into buckets of computed metrics and timeseries.' It specifies the verb ('aggregate'), resource ('CI Visibility test events'), and output format ('buckets of computed metrics and timeseries'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aggregate_ci_pipelines_analytics' or 'aggregate_spans_analytics', which reduces clarity about when to choose this specific aggregation tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to sibling aggregation tools (e.g., 'aggregate_ci_pipelines_analytics' for pipeline data vs. test events). Without any usage context, an agent must infer based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that it 'Returns the span-based metric object from the request body when the request is successful,' which adds some behavioral context about the return value. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), error handling, or rate limits. The return statement is helpful but insufficient for a creation 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a metric based on your ingested spans in your organization') and followed by a concise statement about the return value. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a creation tool with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return value, but for a tool that likely involves mutating data in an organization, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The absence of an output schema means the description's mention of the return object is helpful, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for 0 parameters, since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a metric') and the resource ('based on your ingested spans in your organization'), which is specific and distinguishes it from generic metric creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_metrics' or 'create_rum_config_metrics', which would require mentioning the specific APM (Application Performance Monitoring) context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for creating metrics (e.g., create_logs_config_metrics, create_rum_config_metrics), but the description doesn't mention APM-specific context, prerequisites, or when this tool is appropriate compared to others. It only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (Zod schema metadata without hints like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool uses POST to update configuration by adding to existing integration, which implies mutation behavior. It also mentions 'role based authentication' and 'unique AWS Account ID', adding useful context. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with some redundancy (e.g., mentioning 'POST method' and 'updates your integration configuration' could be combined). It's front-loaded with the main purpose but includes technical details that might be verbose. While not overly long, it could be more streamlined for better clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides basic purpose and some behavioral context (authentication, configuration update method). However, it lacks details on what the integration entails, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a creation tool with no structured guidance, this is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by implying that AWS Account ID for authentication is needed (though not as a parameter), which provides context about what the tool expects. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds some semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a Datadog-Amazon Web Services integration') and specifies the resource involved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration_azure' or 'create_integration_gcp_accounts' by specifying AWS. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other AWS-related create tools (e.g., 'create_integration_aws_logs'), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions using POST method and that it updates configuration by adding to existing ones. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), or alternatives (e.g., when to use 'update_integration_aws' instead). No sibling tool comparisons are made, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. As a creation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention what a 'Datadog GCP principal' is, why one would create it, or what the expected outcome is. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps for proper agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty object), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter situation (none exist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a Datadog GCP principal' clearly states the action (create) and resource (Datadog GCP principal). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration_gcp_accounts' by specifying 'principal' rather than 'account', but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond naming. The purpose is specific enough for understanding the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_integration_gcp_accounts' or other GCP integration tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit 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 carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a filter and returns objects from the request body, implying a write operation with a response. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds basic behavioral context but is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: one for the action and one for the return. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence is slightly redundant ('when the request is successful') and could be more precise, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation (create operation) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like required permissions, what a 'RUM retention filter' entails, how the request body should be structured, or error cases. For a creation tool in a complex domain (RUM), more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly avoids redundancy, though it does not add semantic value beyond the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a RUM retention filter for a RUM application.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('RUM retention filter'), and target context ('for a RUM application'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_rum_applications' or 'update_rum_application_retention_filters', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing RUM application), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'update_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'delete_rum_application_retention_filters'. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates and returns the rule, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new notification rule') and adds value by specifying the return ('return the created rule'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) that would help an agent use it correctly. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's appropriate since there are none. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('notification rule for security signals'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security signals rather than other notification rule types like monitor or vulnerability rules. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools in the sibling list beyond the resource specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for creating security signal notification rules, or when other tools (like update or delete variants) might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Trigger' implies an action that initiates something, the description doesn't specify what happens after triggering (e.g., whether tests run immediately, if results are returned, if this is a one-time or recurring trigger, or what permissions are required). This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'triggering' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from related tools. The absence of behavioral details makes it incomplete for confident agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Trigger') and resource ('a set of Synthetic tests for continuous integration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_tests_triggers', which appear to be related but have different names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or differentiate from sibling tools that might handle similar functionality (like 'create_synthetics_tests' or 'create_synthetics_tests_triggers').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending emails (implying a notification action) but doesn't describe what happens after invitation - whether users are provisioned immediately, what permissions they get, whether invitations expire, or what the response format looks like. For a tool that likely involves external communication and user management, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Sends emails') and includes all essential information about the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (sending emails, creating invitations) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavioral aspects. While it clearly states the purpose, it lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. The completeness is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for confident agent usage without additional trial or 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter situation (which is that there are none).
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 ('Sends emails') and target ('to one or more users inviting them to join the organization'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_users' which likely creates user records rather than sending invitations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other invitation-related tools that might exist in the broader context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing user emails or permissions), doesn't specify when invitations are appropriate versus direct user creation, and doesn't reference any sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a destructive operation ('revoke') that changes access permissions, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, is reversible, affects dashboard functionality, or what happens to existing public viewers. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('revoke the public URL') and immediately clarifies the outcome ('rendering it private'). Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it optimally concise while conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain authentication requirements, success/failure responses, or system behavior changes. While concise, it leaves significant gaps about how this tool interacts with the system and what the agent should expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description adds value by explaining the implicit context - the dashboard is identified 'associated with the specified token', suggesting authentication/authorization context rather than explicit parameters. This provides useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('revoke') and resource ('public URL for a dashboard'), specifying that it makes the dashboard private. It distinguishes from generic 'delete' operations by focusing on public access removal rather than dashboard deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard' or 'delete_dashboard_public_invitation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance - it mentions the tool operates on 'a dashboard associated with the specified token', but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. There's no comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard' or 'update_dashboard_public', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated resources, or what confirmation/response to expect. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It identifies what gets deleted but doesn't explain the consequences, required permissions, or what 'tenant-based handle' means in practice. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what confirmation or response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a tenant-based handle from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'delete_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handle', which appears to delete a different type of handle in the same integration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or what constitutes a 'tenant-based handle' versus other handle types. The sibling tool list shows a similar deletion tool for workflows/webhook handles, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about permissions needed, consequences of removal, or what the response looks like. The description is complete enough to understand the basic action but insufficient for safe, informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation gaps. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is correct for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target resource ('a channel from your Datadog-Slack integration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels_v1' or 'update_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels', which handle similar resources differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing channel configuration), when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives among the many sibling delete/create/update tools for Slack integration channels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only the basic purpose. While concise, it lacks important contextual information about permissions, consequences, or what constitutes a 'notification rule for security signals.' The description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to do so. The baseline for 0 parameters with complete schema coverage is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a notification rule for security signals'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'delete_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rule' or 'delete_monitor_notification_rule', which would require explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without any contextual help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the 1000-item limit, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other traits like read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place: 'fetches' (action), 'most recent 1000' (scope/limit), 'AWS on demand tasks' (resource). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks behavioral details like response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with no structured metadata, more context would be helpful for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds value by specifying the scope ('most recent 1000') which isn't in the schema. No parameter information is missing or 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 ('fetches') and resource ('AWS on demand tasks'), with specificity about the scope ('most recent 1000'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' by focusing on tasks rather than accounts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws' for full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or when other tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws' might be more appropriate. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'configured' means in practice. The description is too minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but lacks annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or output format, which are important for a read operation. It meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of configured span-based metrics with their definitions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_apm_config_metric' (singular) or 'aggregate_spans_analytics', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_apm_config_metric' (singular) or 'aggregate_spans_analytics', leaving the agent without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about what the returned list contains, its format, or any behavioral constraints. The description covers the basic 'what' but leaves the 'how' and 'what-returns' unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters since none exist. This matches the baseline expectation for parameterless tools, though it doesn't add any additional context about implicit filtering or scoping.
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 'Get the list of APM retention filters' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (APM retention filters), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific enough to distinguish this as a retrieval operation for a particular configuration type. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_apm_config_retention_filter' (singular) that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'create_apm_config_retention_filters' or 'update_apm_config_retention_filter'. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes meaning. Efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with many sibling tools that could be confused with it, more context about scope, permissions, and output format would be helpful. The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement given the complex sibling tool environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly indicates no inputs are required for this list operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('application keys'), specifying scope ('available for your org'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application_key' (singular) and 'create_application_keys', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'get_api_keys' or 'get_current_user_application_keys'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_user_application_keys' or 'get_service_account_application_keys'. The description implies it's for organizational-level keys, but doesn't state this explicitly or mention prerequisites like authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details, usage context, or output information. For a basic read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide complete guidance for an agent to use it effectively in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions `project_id` as the identifier, which adds context beyond the empty schema. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool where the ID might be inferred from context or handled differently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a project'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies retrieving details by `project_id`, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_cases' or 'get_cases_projects' (which might list multiple projects), so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools like 'get_cases' or 'create_cases_projects'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention something about the return format or behavior (e.g., 'returns an array of CUR configuration objects'). The description meets basic requirements but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It focuses on the action and resource, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the AWS CUR configs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('AWS CUR configs'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the AWS CUR configs resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list operations like 'get_cost_azure_uc_configs' or 'get_cost_gcp_uc_configs' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools like 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'update_cost_aws_cur_configs'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's safe to invoke frequently. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Get the list of all CSM Agents') and adds clarifying scope ('running on your hosts and containers'), making it appropriately sized and zero-waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., agent details, status) or behavioral context like safety or performance, which is needed for a read operation with no annotations to guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all CSM Agents'), specifying scope ('running on your hosts and containers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_hosts_and_containers' by focusing on agents rather than coverage analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_csm_onboarding_serverless_agents', which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_csm_onboarding_serverless_agents' or other agent-related tools. The description implies usage for retrieving CSM agents but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get the list'), but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or the format of the returned list. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and return format, which are important for a read operation. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed by not mentioning any, aligning with the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add semantic details, earning a baseline high score for consistency.
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 the list') and resource ('CSM Serverless Agents running on your hosts and containers'), making the purpose evident. It specifies 'all' to indicate comprehensiveness. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_agents' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_serverless', which would require a more specific distinction for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools present (especially other 'get_csm_onboarding_' tools), the lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns a specific key format, handles errors, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get') and specifies the resource precisely. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., what format the application key is returned in), error conditions, or authentication requirements. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'Get' actually yields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema already provides complete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('an application key owned by current user'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other application key tools by specifying 'current user' ownership, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_user_application_keys' (plural) which might retrieve multiple keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this retrieves a single key versus multiple keys (compared to 'get_current_user_application_keys'), what happens if no key exists, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Fetch' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'all' means in practice (complete list vs limited). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
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 read operation with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the definitions are returned in, whether there are any filters or limitations, or how this differs from similar dashboard-related tools. The description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on purpose rather than parameter explanation.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('all of your existing dashboard list definitions'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on dashboard lists specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'get_dashboard_lists_manual' or 'get_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 pagination, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('describe the invitations') and adds one key behavioral detail ('paginated'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simplifying input) but lacks annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and pagination, but for a read operation that likely returns structured data, more context on output format or usage constraints would be helpful. It's complete enough for a simple list tool but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('describe') and resource ('invitations that exist for the given shared dashboard'), specifying it's about listing existing invitations. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_public' or 'create_dashboard_public_invitation', but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions pagination but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other invitation-related tools like 'create_dashboard_public_invitation' or 'delete_dashboard_public_invitation'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or what 'previously created' entails (e.g., time range, user scope). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a read-only list tool, it should ideally mention return structure or usage constraints, but the absence of output schema means the agent has no guidance on what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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: 'Gets a list of previously created embeddable graphs.' It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('embeddable graphs'), and scope ('previously created'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_graph_embed' or 'get_graph_snapshots', which appear to be related but distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or how it differs from similar 'get_graph_*' tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get all' implies a read-only list operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' encompasses (e.g., active only, includes deleted). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get all Amazon EventBridge sources.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being retrieved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings. For a read operation with no structured support, it meets the bare minimum but doesn't provide a complete picture for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is assigned as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, and the absence of parameters is inherently clear.
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 'Get all Amazon EventBridge sources' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Amazon EventBridge sources'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (like 'get_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_aws_event_bridges'), but the specificity of 'EventBridge sources' provides adequate clarity for a standalone tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_integration_aws' (general AWS integration) and 'create_integration_aws_event_bridges' (creation counterpart), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or differentiation. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what information is returned (e.g., integration names, IDs, status) or any limitations. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to discover behavioral details through trial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description correctly implies no inputs are required for this listing operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and the resource ('Datadog-Azure integrations configured in your Datadog account'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other integration-related tools in the sibling list (like 'get_integration_aws' or 'get_integration_gcp_accounts'), which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with other integration listing tools in the sibling set. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not specify whether this requires authentication, returns structured data, has side effects, or involves rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any structural waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or integration context. It is minimally viable for a zero-parameter tool but does not compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('tenant, team, and channel ID of a channel in the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handle' or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handle', which reduces clarity on scope boundaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or how it relates to other integration configuration tools in the sibling list, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the information is returned in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema is empty) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, return format, or error conditions. For a simple read operation, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (empty schema), so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value here but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the tenant, team, and channel information of a tenant-based handle from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('tenant, team, and channel information'), and scope ('tenant-based handle'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' (plural) or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this specific tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' (which likely lists multiple handles) or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get a list' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'tenant-based handles' represent in practice. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't provide context about the returned data format, potential errors, or how 'tenant-based handles' fit into the broader integration. For a read operation with no structured metadata, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully covers the parameter situation (none exist).
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 a list') and resource ('tenant-based handles from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles' or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools related to Microsoft Teams integration (e.g., get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles, get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_channel), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify contexts where this tool is appropriate versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list but omits critical details like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and return format, which could hinder the agent's ability to use it correctly in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose, which aligns with the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('Workflows webhook handles from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles' or 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handle', which could cause confusion about scope or granularity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_integration_ms_teams_configuration_tenant_based_handles', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any constraints like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List') and resource ('Fastly accounts'), making it immediately scannable and easy to understand. 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?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling. The context signals show low complexity (0 params, no nested objects), so the description meets basic needs but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Fastly accounts' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Fastly accounts'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_account' (singular) or 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts', which would require more specificity about scope or filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including 'get_integrations_fastly_account' for a single account and 'create_integrations_fastly_accounts' for creation), there's no indication of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or appropriate contexts for this listing operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external integrations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the integration's state, potential errors, or the format of the returned channel list, which could be important for an agent to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all channels configured for your Datadog-Slack integration'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels_v1_2' or 'update_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_integration_slack_configuration_account_channels_v1_2'), leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the return data takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure) or any authentication requirements. The description meets minimum viability but leaves contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('IP allowlist and its enabled or disabled state'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domain_allowlists' or 'update_ip_allowlists', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with sibling tools like 'update_ip_allowlists' or 'get_domain_allowlists'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's a 'Get' operation and takes no arguments, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies it takes no arguments. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and parameter information. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks important context about what the response contains (e.g., list format, data structure), permissions required, or rate limits. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which perfectly clarifies that there are zero parameters. With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable confirmation beyond what the empty schema provides. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by explicitly calling out the parameterless nature.
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: 'Get the current order of your archives.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current order of your archives'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_archives', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' this is parameter information rather than usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other archive-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get the list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'configured' means versus unconfigured archives. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. With no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the return format looks like (e.g., array of archive objects, pagination metadata) or any constraints. The presence of similar sibling tools suggests this tool might have specific scope that isn't clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of configured logs archives with their definitions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' (singular) or 'get_logs_config_archive_orders', which could cause confusion about when to use this plural version versus others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' (singular) and 'get_logs_config_archive_orders' present, the agent receives no indication whether this tool is for listing all archives, filtered archives, or something else. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get the list'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, response format) that would help an agent use it effectively. For a read operation with no structured metadata, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. Baseline 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of configured custom destinations in your organization with their definitions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_indexe', but the resource specificity is sufficient for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archives' or 'get_logs_config_pipelines', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only) and mentions no JSON arguments, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'one log index' means (e.g., by ID, default, or random). The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter requirement. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally specify what 'one log index' entails (e.g., how it's selected) or mention authentication needs. It meets basic requirements but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments', which aligns with the schema and adds clarity. This compensates adequately for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('one log index from your organization'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_indexes' (plural) by specifying 'one log index', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other log-related tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments', which is a technical constraint but not usage context. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'current order,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list, JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful technical note about parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and that it takes no arguments, but it lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context, which could be important for an agent to invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which adds value by confirming no inputs are needed, aligning with the schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current order of your log indexes.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('log indexes'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_indexes' or 'update_logs_config_index_orders', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which is a technical detail about parameters but doesn't help the agent decide between this tool and other log-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_logs_config_indexes' or 'update_logs_config_index_orders'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens if the metric doesn't exist, or the format of the return value. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple operation.
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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain how the metric is specified (contradicting 'specific' with no parameters) or what the return value looks like. For a retrieval tool, this lack of output information is a notable gap, though the simplicity of the operation keeps it from being severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it could clarify how the metric is identified (e.g., by name or ID, though no parameters exist). Since 0 parameters is straightforward, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific log-based metric'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metrics' (plural) or 'update_logs_config_metric', leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this singular retrieval versus list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a metric identifier), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metrics' (which likely lists multiple metrics). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get the list of configured log-based metrics with their definitions.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic 'what' but lacks context about usage, behavior, or output. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, more detail on permissions or response structure would improve completeness, though the low complexity keeps it from being severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description accurately reflects the lack of inputs without attempting to compensate for non-existent gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of configured log-based metrics with their definitions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('configured log-based metrics'), and scope ('list' with 'definitions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_metric' (singular) or 'aggregate_logs_analytics', which might retrieve similar data differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_logs_config_metric' for a single metric, 'aggregate_logs_analytics' for aggregated data), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool takes no JSON arguments, which is useful, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like (list, paginated, etc.), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter situation. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter situation but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, return format). For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which aligns with the input schema (0 parameters, 100% coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description effectively covers the parameter semantics by confirming the absence of inputs, warranting a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all pipelines') and resource ('from your organization'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_pipeline' (singular) or 'create_logs_config_pipelines', but the scope is clear. It's not a tautology as it adds meaningful context beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_pipeline' (singular) or 'create_logs_config_pipelines', nor does it specify prerequisites, filtering options, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all...' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes archived policies, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all...') and wastes no space on redundant or verbose explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the return format (e.g., list of policy objects), scope limitations, or any prerequisites. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is warranted as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all monitor configuration policies'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_monitor' or 'list_monitors' by specifying 'policies' rather than monitors themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_monitor_policy' (singular), which might retrieve a specific policy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_monitor_policy' (singular), 'get_monitors', and 'search_monitors', there's no indication whether this retrieves all policies unconditionally, whether filtering is available elsewhere, or what the scope of 'all' entails (e.g., organization-wide vs. user-specific).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations covering behavioral aspects like authentication needs or rate limits, and no information about the return format (list structure, tag format), there are clear gaps in completeness for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the list of tags') and the resource ('for a device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_tags_host' or 'update_ndm_tags_device' that might handle tags differently, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_tags_host' and 'update_ndm_tags_device' present, there's no indication whether this tool is for NDM-specific tags, device-level versus host-level tags, or read-only versus update operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what happens if no schedule exists, whether there are rate limits, or what format the returned user information takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality.
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 tool with zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain how schedules and times are specified without parameters, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. The description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about implementation details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none). The description mentions 'specified schedule' and 'given time' which might imply parameters, but since there are none, this creates some confusion. However, with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('user who is on-call for the specified schedule'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_on_call_schedule' or 'get_on_call_team_on_call', which appear to be related on-call tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'specified schedule' and 'given time' but doesn't explain how these are specified (since there are zero parameters), nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other on-call related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Return'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns a single config or a list. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates what the tool does. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and the returned fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain how to identify the 'specific Org Config' (e.g., by ID or name), what the return format looks like, or any error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, more context about the retrieval mechanism would be helpful, though the simplicity of the tool keeps it from being severely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is given because the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.
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: 'Return the name, description, and value of a specific Org Config.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and the resource ('Org Config'), including what fields are returned. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_org' or 'get_org_configs'—the description implies retrieving a single config but doesn't clarify how it differs from those other get operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'specific Org Config,' or how to identify which config to retrieve. With many sibling tools (including 'get_org_configs' for multiple configs), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Returns all Org Configs' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral details like permissions or response structure. It covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or constraints, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('all Org Configs') with specific attributes (name, description, and value). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns 'all' configs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'get_org_config' (singular).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'returns data' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the data is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if it returns all organizations or just the top-level one. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't waste space on redundant information. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about authentication requirements, return format, or how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'data' is returned and in what structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description correctly implies no parameters are needed for this operation.
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: 'returns data on your top-level organization.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('top-level organization'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_org' or 'get_user_orgs', which might provide similar organizational data but with different scopes or filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_org' (singular) or 'get_user_orgs'. Without this information, an agent might struggle to choose between similar organizational data retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens if no permissions exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying what's returned and what fields are included, with zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally mention the return format (e.g., list structure) or behavioral constraints. The completeness is minimal but viable for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all permissions'), specifying the included fields (name, description, ID). It distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on permissions, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_role_permissions' or 'get_user_permissions' that might exist in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with other permission-related tools that appear in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_role_permissions', 'get_user_permissions', 'create_role_permissions').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'WAF custom rule' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve') and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving perfect conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the resource (e.g., what 'WAF custom rule' means), behavioral details, or output format. For a read operation with no structured support, it should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and it correctly implies no inputs are required for listing. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter situation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a list of WAF custom rule'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule' (singular) or other WAF-related tools, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule' (singular) or other retrieval tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve') and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by specifying the exact resource type and retrieval method.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (empty schema) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what a WAF exclusion filter is, what format the identifier takes, or what the return value looks like (no output schema exists). For a retrieval tool, more context about the resource and response would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds value by specifying that retrieval uses 'its identifier', implying an identifier is needed despite no parameters in the schema. This clarifies the likely endpoint structure. With no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific WAF exclusion filter'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies retrieval by identifier, which distinguishes it from bulk listing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filters' (plural) which likely retrieves multiple filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the filter identifier), when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct alternatives like the plural version 'get_remote_config_products_asm_waf_exclusion_filters' for listing multiple filters. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get information'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or whether it returns all IP ranges or a filtered subset. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on what 'information' includes (e.g., IP ranges, types, regions) or behavioral context, which could help the agent understand the output better.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, and it implies no filtering or input requirements, aligning with the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about Datadog IP ranges'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_ip_allowlists' or 'get_domain_allowlists', but the resource specificity is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_ip_allowlists' or 'query_resources', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'associated with a specified resource' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and a read operation, it should ideally mention safety or return format, but it doesn't, leaving some contextual gaps. It's complete enough for a simple retrieval tool but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying a resource parameter ('specified resource'), which helps clarify the tool's intent beyond the empty schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('restriction policy'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_restriction_policies' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other 'get_' tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get a role' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the role_id doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes necessary detail about the role_id. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context about the return format, error handling, or how the role_id is provided. For a simple read operation, it meets basic needs but doesn't provide complete guidance for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds value by specifying that retrieval is 'by the role's role_id', implying the role_id might be part of the context or URL path rather than a parameter. This provides useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a role in the organization'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies retrieval by 'role_id', which distinguishes it from list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_roles' or 'roles_get', which appear to be list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific role_id), when-not-to-use scenarios, or refer to sibling tools like 'get_roles' (likely for listing roles) or 'roles_get' (another get operation). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns a list' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens if the role doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like how the role is identified (implied by the name but not stated), what format the permissions list returns, or any error handling. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of all permissions for a single role'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_permissions' or 'get_role_users', which could provide similar or related information about roles and permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools related to roles and permissions (e.g., 'get_permissions', 'get_role_users', 'get_role'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify when this tool is appropriate versus when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or what 'all roles' means in context (e.g., all in the system, all accessible to the user). For a zero-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does: 'Returns all roles, including their names and their unique identifiers.' It's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential details without any fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that likely returns a list of roles, it lacks details on response format (e.g., array structure, pagination), scope ('all' could mean system-wide or user-accessible), and how it differs from similar sibling tools. With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all roles, including their names and their unique identifiers.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('roles'), and what information is included. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_role' (singular) or 'roles_get'/'roles_list', which appear to be similar list/retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_role' (singular retrieval), 'roles_get', and 'roles_list', there's no indication whether this tool returns a comprehensive list, whether it's paginated, or when to choose it over other role-fetching tools. The agent must infer usage from naming patterns alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what RUM retention filters are, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. While the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) reduces the need for extensive documentation, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of RUM retention filters for a RUM application'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rum_application_retention_filters_v2_2' or 'create_rum_application_retention_filters', leaving room for confusion about version differences or read vs. create operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_rum_application_retention_filters_v2_2' (which appears to be a similar version) or 'create_rum_application_retention_filters', nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, metric definition fields) or potential behavioral aspects like permissions or rate limits, leaving gaps despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given no parameters exist, earning a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of configured rum-based metrics with their definitions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aggregate_rum_analytics' by focusing on configuration retrieval rather than analytics aggregation, though it doesn't 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rum_config_metric' (singular) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics'. The description implies usage for listing configured metrics but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, 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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'definitions' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves and what to expect from its output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the list') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context like permissions or output format. For a read operation in a security context, more detail on what 'definitions' entail or access requirements would enhance completeness, though the absence of complex schema reduces the burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't incorrectly suggest any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of configured security filters with their definitions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on security filters rather than other configuration types like suppressions or rules, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar 'get' tools for other security monitoring components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppression' or 'get_security_monitoring_rules', leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'suppression rules' are in this context, how the list is structured, or any behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotations, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly imply any parameters exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema is fully descriptive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of all suppression rules', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppression' (singular) or other suppression-related tools, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be relevant for filtering or managing suppression rules, leaving the agent with insufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes necessary detail about the rule ID. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets the basic threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description mentions retrieving suppressions 'by its ID', implying a rule ID is needed, but since there are no parameters, this is likely handled differently (e.g., via URL path). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description adds context about the rule ID without conflicting with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the list of suppressions') and the target resource ('that affect a specific existing rule by its ID'). It specifies verb+resource+scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' which likely lists all suppressions rather than those for a specific rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions retrieving suppressions for a 'specific existing rule by its ID', but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., needing a rule ID) or contrast with similar tools like 'get_security_monitoring_configuration_suppressions' (which might list all suppressions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., JSON structure, fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the details'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on how to use it (e.g., how to identify the rule), what it returns, or any constraints. For a tool with no structured data, more detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a notification rule for security signals'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_security_signals_notification_rules' (plural) or 'create_security_signals_notification_rules', but the singular vs plural distinction is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a rule ID), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_security_signals_notification_rules' (plural) or 'update_security_signals_notification_rule'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Returns the list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the list returns (e.g., paginated, filtered), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality ('Returns the list'), making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.
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 read operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool returns but doesn't provide context about the notification rules' format, scope, or relationship to security signals. Given the complexity implied by 'security signals notification rules' and the lack of output schema, more detail about what constitutes a notification rule would be helpful for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, which would be redundant. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of notification rules for security signals'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools like 'get_security_signals_notification_rule' (singular) or 'get_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rules', which would require explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_signals' or 'get_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rules'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool appropriately among many similar-sounding options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., whether it returns everything or has limitations). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool with no parameters, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally mention what the output contains (e.g., group details, format) or behavioral aspects like pagination. The current description meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly indicates no parameters are required by stating 'List all' without mentioning any inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and the resource ('Scanning groups in your organization'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_sensitive_data_scanner_config_standard_patterns' or 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_groups', which would require explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_groups' or 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_configs'. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies safety, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'service definitions' contain, whether the list is paginated, or what authentication is required. While the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for extensive documentation, some behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters since none exist, which is correct. It could potentially mention that no filtering options are available, but the absence of parameters is adequately handled by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('all service definitions from the Datadog Service Catalog'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (like get_services_definition singular vs plural), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including get_services_definition for a single definition), there's no indication of whether this is for bulk retrieval, pagination needs, or filtering capabilities. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks context about how this fits into the broader system, what 'detailed configuration' includes, or any usage constraints. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the schema is fully 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration associated with a Synthetic Mobile test'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from generic 'get' operations by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests' or 'get_synthetics_tests_browser'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (including other 'get_synthetics_' tools), there's no indication of whether this retrieves a single test, all tests, or filtered results, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed configuration' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the detailed configuration') and efficiently specifies the resource ('associated with a Synthetic API test'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, what 'detailed configuration' entails, or behavioral traits. For a read operation with no structured metadata, more guidance would be helpful, but it's not entirely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration associated with a Synthetic API test'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1', which reduces clarity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to synthetics (e.g., get_synthetics_tests, get_synthetics_test_results_v1, synthetics_get_test), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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 implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns all configuration fields. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the detailed configuration') without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on how to identify the Synthetic test (e.g., via a test ID in the URL or headers), what 'detailed configuration' includes, and behavioral aspects. For a read operation with no structured support, it should provide more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is justified since no parameters exist to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed configuration associated with a Synthetic test'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_synthetics_tests' (list) or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1_2' (results) by focusing on configuration details. However, it could be slightly more precise about what 'detailed configuration' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a test ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests' (list tests) or 'search_synthetics_tests' (search). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the list,' implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list structure, variable details) or any behavioral context, which could be important for a 'get all' operation in a monitoring system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like filters) are not required. Baseline is high due to no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all Synthetic global variables'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_variable' (singular) or other get_* tools, which would require mentioning scope or uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Return the list' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the tags are returned in (e.g., array, object), or if there are any rate limits or constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding what the tool does.
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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, tag types) or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a simple read operation, it's passable but could benefit from more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description implies the host is 'given' but doesn't specify how (e.g., via context or implicit parameter), which adds minimal semantic value. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
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 ('Return the list of tags') and the target resource ('that apply to a given host'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tags_hosts' (plural) or 'update_tags_host', which might have similar purposes but different scopes or operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_tags_hosts' (which might return tags for multiple hosts) or 'update_tags_host' (which modifies tags).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'return' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a real-time or cached view, what format the mapping takes (e.g., JSON object, list of pairs), whether it's paginated, or any performance considerations for 'whole infrastructure' queries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation with no parameters, and the information is front-loaded with the essential 'what it does' statement.
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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool returns. However, it lacks details about the return format, data structure, or any limitations of the 'whole infrastructure' scope. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about what to expect from the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than attempting to describe non-existent inputs, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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: 'Return a mapping of tags to hosts for your whole infrastructure.' It specifies the verb ('return'), resource ('mapping of tags to hosts'), and scope ('whole infrastructure'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_tags_host' (singular vs plural), leaving some ambiguity about differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios. With many sibling tools available, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific mapping tool over other tag or host-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or whether it returns structured data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Returns') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but lacks context about the invitation format, error handling, or relationship to other tools. For a read operation with no structured metadata, it meets the bare minimum but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('a single user invitation') with the specific identifier ('by its UUID'). It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation for a single item rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_invitations' (which might list multiple), though that tool isn't in the provided list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid UUID), error conditions, or related tools like 'create_user_invitations' or 'get_users'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and describes the return data, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded. It uses exactly two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simple input), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information: what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks important context about authentication, permissions, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. The description is complete enough to understand the basic function but insufficient for confident usage 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a user organization' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'user organization'. It also specifies what data is returned: 'user information and all organizations joined by this user'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_orgs', which appear to exist in the sibling list, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools (like 'get_user', 'get_orgs', 'get_users', 'get_user_memberships') that might retrieve similar or overlapping data, but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing this specific tool. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 an authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by an authentication note. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it is appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It mentions an authentication requirement but lacks details on what 'specific execution' entails, how to identify it, or what the return value includes. For a tool that likely retrieves workflow data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific execution of a given workflow.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific execution of a given workflow'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_instances_v2' or 'get_workflow', which might be similar, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an API requirement but does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the 24-hour time constraint, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal but doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Search for metrics' (action), 'from the last 24 hours' (constraint), 'in Datadog' (context). There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It specifies the resource (metrics), time range (24 hours), and system (Datadog). However, for a search operation, it lacks details on output format, pagination, sorting, or error conditions. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to cover behavioral aspects, but it's adequate for a simple, parameterless query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does imply a fixed time range ('last 24 hours'), which could be considered an implicit constraint. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds some context without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for metrics') and resource ('from Datadog'), with a specific time constraint ('from the last 24 hours'). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_resources' or 'metrics_query_timeseries' that might also retrieve metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a 24-hour time window but doesn't specify if this is a hard constraint, nor does it reference any sibling tools for different time ranges or query types. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, sorting options, or what happens when no SLOs exist. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get a list') and doesn't waste space on redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects, JSON structure) or any implicit filtering. The description covers the basic 'what' but leaves the 'how' and 'what you get' unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies this tool requires no inputs by not mentioning any. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('service level objective objects'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the scope ('for your organization'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_slos' or 'slos_list', which appear to serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_slos' and 'slos_list' available, there's no indication of differences in functionality, filtering capabilities, or appropriate use cases. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Update') and resource. Every word earns its place by specifying updatable fields without redundancy. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.
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 0 parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, response format). The description is complete for a simple update operation but insufficient for safe and effective use without additional guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty object), so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by specifying what can be updated ('status and/or account filtering configuration'), which provides context beyond the empty schema. This compensates appropriately for the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('AWS CUR config'), specifying what fields can be updated ('status (active/archived) and/or account filtering configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_cost_azure_uc_config' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing config to update), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update_cost_azure_uc_config'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it updates status. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive mutation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about behavioral implications, success criteria, or error conditions. Given the complexity of a status update operation, more context would be helpful.
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 (schema coverage 100%), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update the status') and resource ('GCP Usage Cost config'), specifying what fields are updated ('active/archived'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status updates rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_cost_gcp_uc_configs' or 'delete_cost_gcp_uc_config'. The description implies usage for status changes but offers no context on prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool relationships.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether this affects existing webhook configurations, what happens to unchanged settings, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects, response format) that would be helpful for an agent. The completeness 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema already provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for tools with zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a Workflows webhook handle from the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), providing specific verb+resource information. It distinguishes this as an update operation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools for other integration components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from related tools like 'create_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles' or 'delete_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handle'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks critical context about behavioral traits, return values, and usage guidance. While the parameter situation is fully covered by the schema, the mutation nature requires more behavioral disclosure than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for this situation is appropriately set at 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('a single service object in the Datadog-PagerDuty integration'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_pagerduty_configuration_services' or 'delete_integration_pagerduty_configuration_service', which would require explicit scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing service object), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools like create/delete operations for PagerDuty integration services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that updates are partial and fields are optional, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Partially update the notification rule') and adds necessary detail about optional fields. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic update operation. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in completeness for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by clarifying that all fields are optional and partial updates are supported, which is helpful context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Partially update') and resource ('notification rule'), which is specific and distinguishes it from creation or deletion operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools for security vulnerabilities or other notification rules, though the tool name provides some context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rules or delete_security_vulnerabilities_notification_rule. The description mentions partial updates but doesn't specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing rule to update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a mutation ('changing the status'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to test execution during status changes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Pause or start a Synthetic test by changing the status.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no parameters), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. No annotations exist to provide safety or behavioral context, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial details for a mutation tool, such as error conditions or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no parameters are needed for the basic status change operation. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pause or start a Synthetic test by changing the status.' It specifies the action (pause/start), the resource (Synthetic test), and the mechanism (changing status). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'update_synthetics_tests_mobile', which might also modify test states but for different test types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a test ID), when not to use it (e.g., for other test modifications), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_synthetics_test_v1' or 'synthetics_update_test'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a user by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get a user by ID'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output. For a read operation with no parameters, it's functional but could benefit from additional guidance or behavioral details to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No parameters are mentioned, which is appropriate given the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a user by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user'), specifying the lookup method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'users_list' and 'get_users' by focusing on single-user retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other user-related tools beyond the naming convention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'users_list' for listing multiple users or 'get_user' (which appears to be a duplicate), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a user ID. Usage context is entirely implied from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the rate limit ('300 requests per hour'), which is not inferable from annotations. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or side effects, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by rate-limiting info. It is efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from constraints).
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 0 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and a key constraint (rate limit), but lacks details on output (e.g., what metrics/timeseries are returned), error cases, or how it differs from siblings, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it avoids redundancy and focuses on other aspects, though it could note the lack of parameters explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'aggregates spans into buckets and computes metrics and timeseries', which clarifies the verb (aggregate/compute) and resource (spans). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'aggregate_logs_analytics' or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', leaving the scope vague regarding what 'spans' specifically refer to (e.g., APM spans vs. other types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is an 'API endpoint' and rate-limited, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings like 'search_spans_events' or other aggregate tools. This leaves the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a check operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose whether it requires specific permissions, what criteria determine deletability, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place by clearly communicating the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'given monitors' refers to (contextual input), what criteria determine deletability, or what the return value contains (e.g., boolean, list of deletable monitors, reasons for non-deletability). For a validation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description mentions 'given monitors' but doesn't specify how monitors are identified since there are no parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description could clarify if monitors are implicitly determined by context or if this checks all monitors globally.
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 'Check if the given monitors can be deleted' clearly states the action (check) and resource (monitors) with a specific condition (can be deleted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_monitor' by focusing on validation rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'can_delete_slos' which serves a similar purpose for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before deletion operations ('can be deleted'), suggesting it should be used to verify deletability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like directly attempting deletion or checking specific deletion constraints. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives 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?
The description adds two important behavioral constraints beyond what annotations provide: API key requirement and the 10-minute past submission limit. However, it doesn't disclose other critical behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication scope, whether this is idempotent, or what happens on submission failure. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and provides only partial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear main statement followed by bullet-pointed notes. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, and the notes provide essential constraints. However, the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (data submission with timing constraints), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers authentication and timing constraints but misses critical context like expected response format, error handling, rate limits, and how this tool differs from other data submission tools in the sibling list. For a submission tool with no structured safety annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema already fully documents the empty input structure. The description correctly focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('Service Checks'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_events' or 'create_monitor' that also create/submit data, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that create/submit various types of data (events, monitors, logs, etc.), there's no indication of when service checks are appropriate versus other monitoring data types. The notes about API keys and timing constraints are operational prerequisites, not 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action, resulting in a mediocre score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what a 'custom destination' entails, how it's used, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a custom destination in your organization'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_archive' or 'create_logs_config_indexes', which also create logs configuration resources, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools present (e.g., other 'create_logs_config_*' tools), this omission leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new workflow (implying a write operation) and returns an ID, and mentions an authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or side effects, which are important for a creation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key requirement. There is no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the requirement more clearly.
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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and an authentication requirement but lacks details on the workflow creation process, expected inputs (if any beyond the empty schema), or error conditions. For a creation tool, more context would be beneficial to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameters (none), 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.
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: 'Create a new workflow, returning the workflow ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('workflow'), and mentions the return value. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_workflow_instances' or other 'create_' tools, which would require more specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an API requirement but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions relative to sibling tools. Without such information, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't mention whether deletions are permanent, reversible, require confirmation, or have side effects. It also doesn't address authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The single constraint about default rules is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the action, and the second adds a critical constraint. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error if rule doesn't exist), what 'default rules' means, or how to identify them. Given the destructive nature and lack of structured safety hints, more behavioral context is needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what's already documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an existing rule'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'delete_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule' or 'delete_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter', which also delete security-related rules but for different rule types.
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 one important usage constraint: 'Default rules cannot be deleted.' This gives some guidance on when NOT to use the tool. However, it doesn't specify when TO use it versus alternatives (like update operations) or mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing rule IDs or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention critical traits like whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects, nor does it describe the response format or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the action and a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details: what happens post-deletion (e.g., permanence, confirmation), error handling, and how to specify the workflow ID (since the schema shows no parameters). The authentication note is helpful but insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description implies a workflow ID is needed ('by ID'), but since the schema shows no properties, this might indicate the ID is handled elsewhere (e.g., in the URL). Given the lack of parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds some context without conflicting with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workflow_instances' or 'delete_workflows' (if they exist), which would require more context about what distinguishes deleting a single workflow by ID from other deletion operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an API requirement but doesn't specify prerequisites like needing the workflow ID, nor does it compare to other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_workflows' or 'delete_workflow_instances'). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the limitation on preset dashboards, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first, followed by a clarifying note. Both sentences are necessary and add value without waste. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what is returned (custom/cloned dashboards) but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format. For a read operation with no structured data, it meets minimum viability but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details, which is acceptable. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all dashboards.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('dashboards'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'list_dashboards', which might offer similar functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a note clarifying that it only returns custom or cloned dashboards, not preset ones, which provides some context on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., other dashboard retrieval tools) or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a site restriction (not available for US1-FED), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or the response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a critical note. There's no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by adding value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the note with bullet points), but it's efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a policy retrieval tool), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key restriction, but lacks details on authentication, response format, error handling, or how to specify the policy. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has incomplete guidance on usage and results, making it functional but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate. It does imply a need to identify a 'specific' policy, but since parameters are absent, this might be handled via context or path parameters not in the schema. Given the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this meets expectations without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the details of a specific Workload Protection policy.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Workload Protection policy'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_remote_config_products_cws_policies' (plural) or 'update_remote_config_products_cws_policy', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific 'get' tool versus others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance through a note about site availability: 'This endpoint is not available for the Government (US1-FED) site.' This helps the agent avoid using it in that context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. the plural 'get_remote_config_products_cws_policies' for listing multiple policies), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or policy identification. The guidance is implied but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Results are paginated') with a link to documentation, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention other key behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds pagination info, and the third provides usage context. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The markdown link is efficient. A minor deduction for the slightly vague 'latest RUM events' phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error responses, and how the 'RUM search query' works. For a tool in a monitoring context, more behavioral context would be helpful, but it meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none. It implies a 'RUM search query' but doesn't detail how this is specified (likely via query parameters not in the schema). Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but the slight ambiguity about query parameters prevents a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns events that match a RUM search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('RUM events'), and scope ('that match a RUM search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_rum_events' or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest RUM events.' This gives a basic context but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., search_rum_events for filtered searches, aggregate_rum_analytics for aggregated data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed history data structured by source type, with examples for event and time-based SLOs, and notes different response formats. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a read operation with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with four sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining data structure, giving examples, and noting response format differences. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the note about response formats could be integrated more smoothly, and there is minor redundancy in mentioning SLO types twice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (SLO history with different types) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic context on data structure and format variations. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or what 'specific SLO' means (e.g., how to identify it). Without an output schema, more guidance on return values would help, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for missing param info, but it could have clarified if parameters are implied (e.g., SLO identifier), so it's not a perfect 5.
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: 'Get a specific SLO's history, regardless of its SLO type.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SLO's history'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slo' or 'search_slos', which might retrieve current SLO data or search across SLOs, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that history data is structured by source type and notes different response formats, but this is about output behavior, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer this over other SLO-related tools, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 usefully discloses that 'Results are paginated similarly to logs' with a link to documentation, which is critical behavioral information not captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, disclosing pagination behavior, and suggesting usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The link to external documentation is efficiently included but slightly disrupts flow.
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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides reasonable coverage of purpose and pagination behavior. However, for a search tool that presumably returns data, more information about response format, error conditions, or authentication would be helpful. The description is minimally complete but leaves important operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, but it does imply there's a 'search query' capability without specifying how it's constructed. This is adequate given the zero-parameter baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'returns events that match an events search query' which clarifies it's a search/list operation for events. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'events_list', 'get_events', 'search_logs_events', or 'search_rum_events', leaving the specific scope ambiguous. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Use this endpoint to build complex events filtering and search' but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'events_list' or 'get_events'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns matching security signals but does not describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'search query' (e.g., syntax, filters). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence directly states what the tool does, and the second adds relevant context about interchangeability. There is no wasted verbiage, but the second sentence could be slightly more precise to enhance clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a search function with no parameters), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and hints at an alternative, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., output format, error handling) since no annotations or output schema are provided. For a search tool, more context on what 'security signals' entail or how results are structured would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (properties: {}, type: object), and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema fully documents the absence of parameters, and the description appropriately does not introduce unnecessary details.
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: 'Returns security signals that match a search query.' This specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('security signals'), and action ('search query'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_security_monitoring_signals' or other search tools in the list, which would require explicit differentiation for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning that 'Both this endpoint and the GET endpoint can be used interchangeably for listing security signals.' This implies an alternative (a GET endpoint) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the GET endpoint or other search tools. No exclusions or specific scenarios are provided, making the guidance incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies maximum payload size (500KB), compressed payload limits (decompressed <5MB), and detailed byte expectations for timestamp, value, metric names, and timeseries. It also mentions host name as a resource field. This goes beyond basic functionality to include important constraints and implementation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but could be better structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but subsequent technical details about payload sizes and byte expectations are presented as separate facts without clear organization. Some information (like the 100-byte approximation) feels extraneous rather than essential for tool selection.
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 complexity (data submission with specific constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavioral constraints and technical requirements. It covers payload limits, data format expectations, and resource considerations. While it doesn't explain return values (no output schema exists), it gives enough information for an agent to understand the tool's operation and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, instead focusing on payload characteristics and constraints. This meets the baseline expectation for a tool with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool posts time-series data to Datadog's metrics endpoint for graphing on dashboards, which clarifies the verb ('post') and resource ('time-series data'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'submit_distribution_points' or 'metrics_submit_series' that appear to have similar functions, leaving the purpose somewhat vague regarding differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions submitting metrics directly to the API without DogStatsD, but doesn't specify when this approach is preferred or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools. There's no 'when-not' or clear contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation uses PUT to replace the entire configuration, which is important behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is destructive to existing data, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, return value, and behavioral detail about PUT replacement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the replacement behavior earlier, but overall it's well-organized and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more. It covers the basic operation and replacement behavior but lacks information about required permissions, what happens to the old configuration, error cases, or what the Index object contains. For a configuration update tool in a complex system, this is minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters. It correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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: 'Update an index as identified by its name' specifies the verb (update) and resource (index). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_logs_config_indexes' and 'delete_logs_config_indexe' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the PUT method replaces configuration but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to choose this over create/delete, or any constraints. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 that the tool returns the agent rule object upon success, which is useful behavioral information. However, it lacks details on error conditions, side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. The note about the Government site restriction adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with two sentences that directly address the tool's action and a note about usage restrictions. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides important contextual information. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and the information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and a critical usage restriction but lacks details on what the agent rule object contains, error handling, or any behavioral nuances. For a mutation tool without structured support, more context would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter situation, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a specific agent rule'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rules' and 'delete_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the agent rule can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the endpoint should only be used for the Government (US1-FED) site, which is a usage restriction but not a comparative guideline. There is no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or when to choose this over other update tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions an authentication requirement (administrator key), which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other critical traits like whether this is a destructive mutation, what fields can be edited, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Edit a user') and efficiently adds the authentication constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a user update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what can be edited, how the update behaves, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since there are none. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_team' or 'update_role', which also perform updates on different resources, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating it 'Can only be used with an application key belonging to an administrator user,' which implies a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_users' or 'delete_user', or provide any exclusions or comparisons to other update-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 authentication requirement (registered application key), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), potential side effects, rate limits, or what the response might contain. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and a key requirement, but for a creation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention what an 'Action Connection' is, what it's used for, or what happens after creation. The context is incomplete for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on other aspects. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Action Connection', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_api_keys' or 'create_application_keys', which also create different resources in the same system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite about requiring a registered application key, which gives some usage context. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create an Action Connection vs. other connection types or vs. updating/deleting connections), nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'high priority' which suggests urgency/priority behavior, but doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is a read or write operation (though 'trigger' implies mutation), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens if scanning fails, or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the action and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with the essential condition.
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 this is a mutation tool (triggering scans) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what happens after invocation. It mentions the prerequisite but doesn't describe what the tool returns, how to check scan status, error conditions, or what 'high priority' means operationally. For a tool that presumably initiates potentially resource-intensive operations, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. It appropriately focuses on the action and prerequisites without attempting to describe non-existent parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 ('Trigger the scan') and target ('AWS resource'), specifying 'with a high priority' as a key characteristic. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' by focusing on scanning rather than account management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scanning-related tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one important prerequisite ('Agentless scanning must be activated for the AWS account'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives (like scheduled scans or other scanning methods), nor does it mention any other conditions or constraints beyond the activation requirement.
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 the return value ('Returns the retention filter definition when the request is successful'), which adds useful context about the output. However, it does not cover critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a creation 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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently communicates essential information, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a creation operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks details on permissions, error cases, or organizational context, which could help the agent use it correctly in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none to describe. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a retention filter') and the resource ('to index spans in your organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'update_apm_config_retention_filter', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose it over 'create_rum_application_retention_filters' or 'update_apm_config_retention_filter'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Create') but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether the list is mutable, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, resulting in a moderate score due to the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like return values or error handling. The description is complete enough for a simple tool but could benefit from additional context to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. It earns a baseline 4 because the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('an empty dashboard list'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_dashboard_lists_manual_dashboards', which might create dashboards within a list rather than the list itself, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'create_dashboard' or 'create_dashboard_lists' siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The description is neutral and doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or expected outcomes, which could be important for an agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate here, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a tenant-based handle in the Datadog Microsoft Teams integration'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_ms_teams_configuration_workflows_webhook_handles', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies that the tool returns the Index object passed in the request body when successful. However, annotations are minimal (just schema structure), so the description carries more burden but doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two clear sentences: one stating the action and one describing the return behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose first. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a creation tool with no annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic action and return value but lacks information about required permissions, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other logs configuration tools. For a mutation operation, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and the schema already fully documents the empty object structure. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates a new index' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on logs configuration indexes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other create_* tools. The addition of return value information is helpful but doesn't affect the core purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if an index already exists. Among many sibling tools (including other logs config tools), there's no differentiation or usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs deletions (destructive behavior) and explains the partial/full deletion logic. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as required permissions, whether deletions are reversible, rate limits, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying detail about partial/full deletion. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the deletion logic, but omits important context like error handling, response format, or side effects. For a bulk deletion tool, more completeness would be helpful, though the zero-parameter schema simplifies the task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since none exist. It effectively communicates that this tool operates without explicit inputs, though it could hint at how deletion targets are specified (e.g., via request body).
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: 'Delete (or partially delete) multiple service level objective objects.' It specifies the verb ('delete'), resource ('service level objective objects'), and scope ('multiple'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'delete_slo' or 'slo_delete', which appear to handle single deletions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by explaining that it can delete thresholds partially or fully, with full deletion leading to object removal. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_slo' (likely for single deletions) or 'slo_delete' (another sibling). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'revoke' (implying destructive action) but doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to users currently accessing the dashboard. No rate limits or error conditions are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Revoke') and specifies exactly what gets revoked. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), what happens if emails don't exist, or security implications. The context demands more behavioral transparency than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since zero parameters require minimal semantic explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Revoke') and target resources ('previously sent invitation emails and active sessions'), with precise scope ('for specific email addresses'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_dashboard_public' by focusing on invitation revocation rather than dashboard deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing invitations), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_public_invitation' for checking invitations before revocation.
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 critical behavioral trait: 'If there are any failures, no dashboards will be deleted (partial success is not allowed).' This is valuable context about atomicity. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or what constitutes a 'failure'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds crucial behavioral context. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys additional 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic behavioral transparency but lacks important context. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling details, or what the tool returns upon success. The atomicity disclosure is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('dashboards'), specifying it uses IDs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_dashboard' (singular) by indicating it handles multiple dashboards. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools beyond the plural naming.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_dashboard' (singular) or other dashboard-related tools. The description mentions the all-or-nothing behavior but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, confirmation prompts, error conditions, or side effects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this minimal disclosure is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a Datadog-AWS integration') and adds necessary specificity. There's zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by clarifying what gets deleted and how it's identified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about the mutation's consequences, success/failure responses, authentication requirements, or error handling. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool without guessing about its behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage with empty properties), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions `account_id` and `role_name parameters` but these appear to be informational rather than actual schema parameters. Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate, earning a baseline 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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a Datadog-AWS integration'), with precise matching criteria ('matching the specified `account_id` and `role_name parameters`'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' and other delete operations by specifying the exact resource type and parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It mentions parameters but doesn't explain when deletion is appropriate or what happens after deletion. Given the destructive nature implied by 'Delete', this lack of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a rule, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't mention critical details like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any rate limits. The note about site unavailability adds some context, but overall, the description lacks sufficient behavioral transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing a critical note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a deletion operation with no parameters), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and a site restriction but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility) and output (no output schema is provided). For a destructive tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding the full context of use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension, as it doesn't introduce confusion or omissions regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete a specific Workload Protection agent rule.' It includes a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Workload Protection agent rule'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'delete_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule', which appears to serve a similar function, reducing the score from a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by noting the tool is unavailable for the Government (US1-FED) site, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other deletion tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites for invocation. The guidance is implied but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('permanently delete'), which is crucial behavioral information. However, it lacks details about permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the object doesn't exist. The word 'permanently' adds some value beyond just 'delete'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the key information ('permanently delete'). 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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and resource but lacks important context like error conditions, confirmation requirements, or what 'specified' means given there are no parameters. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what gets returned, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'specified SLO correction object', which implies some identification mechanism, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't add meaningful semantic value beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the target resource ('specified SLO correction object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_slo' or 'update_slo_correction', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing SLO correction), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_slo' or 'update_slo_correction'.
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 key behavioral traits: pagination ('This endpoint is paginated') and limited return data ('Only basic app information such as the app ID, name, and description is returned'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: states purpose, mentions pagination, and specifies return data. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple list operation. It covers pagination and return data scope, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or example usage. For a tool with no structured metadata, it's minimally complete but leaves gaps in operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'optional filters and sorting' which might suggest parameters exist, but since the schema explicitly has none, this is slightly misleading. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
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: 'List all apps, with optional filters and sorting.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('apps'), and scope ('all'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_builder_app' (singular) or 'create_app_builder_apps'. The distinction is implied but not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'optional filters and sorting' but doesn't specify what filters are available or when to use this versus other list/search tools in the sibling set. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools for different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a data availability constraint (cost data available by the 19th), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key constraint. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a data availability constraint. However, it lacks details on output format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools (e.g., 'get_cost_by_tag_monthly_cost_attributions'). For a tool in a cost/billing context with many siblings, this leaves gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it adds value by providing context about data availability. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description compensates with useful information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get active billing dimensions for cost attribution.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('active billing dimensions'), and mentions the context of cost attribution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_tag_monthly_cost_attributions' or other cost-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by noting that 'Cost data for a given month becomes available no later than the 19th of the following month,' which implies when the tool might return useful data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other cost or billing tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites, leaving the guidance at an implied level.
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 adds useful context about secret variables not returning values in the response, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and a critical behavioral detail (secret variable handling), but lacks information on return format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple read operation, this 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does mention '<CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>' as a placeholder, implying the variable name is somehow specified (though not as a parameter). This slight ambiguity prevents a perfect score, but with no parameters, the baseline is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Shows the content of the custom variable with the name <CUSTOM_VARIABLE_NAME>.' It specifies the verb ('shows') and resource ('custom variable'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_integration_webhooks_configuration_webhook' or 'create_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variables', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the custom variable name), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable' or 'delete_integration_webhooks_configuration_custom_variable'. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('View'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The temporal constraint ('previous hour') is useful, but overall behavioral disclosure is minimal for a tool with potential data retrieval complexities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function and key constraint, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and temporal scope, but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of tag pairs), error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in guiding an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the metric name requirement and temporal scope ('previous hour'), which are implied inputs not captured in the schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('indexed tag key-value pairs for a given metric name'), making it easy to understand what it does. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on tags rather than analytics or other operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for tag retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'over the previous hour,' which provides temporal context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other tag-related tools like 'get_metric_tags' or 'get_metric_tag_cardinalities'), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is 'updated every 24 hours,' indicating potential caching/staleness—a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description is neutral and doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context (update frequency). Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a key behavioral note (24-hour update). However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, error handling) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured metadata. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it implicitly suggests a metric identifier is required (though not parameterized). Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description adequately explains the tool's function without parameter confusion.
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: 'Returns dashboards, monitors, notebooks, and SLOs that a metric is stored in.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and the resources returned (dashboards, monitors, notebooks, SLOs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metric' or 'get_metric_tags', which might retrieve metric metadata rather than where it's used.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the data is 'updated every 24 hours,' which hints at potential staleness, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for finding metric dependencies vs. querying metric values). No explicit when/when-not 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it specifies that the tool returns 'distinct' metrics volumes and notes that custom metrics from other products return 'null' for ingested volumes. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral note. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral trait (null returns for custom metrics), but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool in a large set with many alternatives, more context would help the agent use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description implies a 'given metric name' is required, but since there are no parameters in the schema, this is likely handled differently (e.g., via context or path). The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with 0 parameters, the baseline is high, and it doesn't mislead.
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: 'View distinct metrics volumes for the given metric name.' It specifies the verb ('View') and resource ('metrics volumes'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metric' or 'get_metrics_v1/v2', which might also retrieve metric-related data, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that custom metrics from other products return 'null' for ingested volumes, which is a behavioral note but not usage guidance. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_metric' or 'aggregate_*' analytics tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds filtering details. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, output format). For a tool with no structured data, it meets minimum viability but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by mentioning optional query parameters (`filter[keyword]` and `filter[me]`) for searching, which aren't in the schema. This provides useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all teams' specifies the verb (get) and resource (teams). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning filtering capabilities, though not by naming specific alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the mention of filtering parameters ('Can be used to search for teams using...'), suggesting it's for retrieving teams with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other team-related tools (e.g., 'get_team' for a single team) or provide exclusions. Guidance is present but limited.
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 does an excellent job describing pagination behavior, including how to handle the 'next_record_id' and even provides pseudo-code with rate limiting guidance (sleep 5 seconds). It also mentions the multi-region data availability constraint. However, it doesn't cover authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the pagination explanation and pseudo-code example are quite lengthy. While the pagination information is valuable, it could be more concise. The multi-region data availability note is appropriately brief. Overall, the description is somewhat verbose for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral context about pagination and data availability. However, it lacks information about what the attribution data actually contains, typical use cases, or what format/fields to expect in the response. Without an output schema, the description should ideally give more guidance about the return value structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even with no parameter information. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document. The mention of 'start_month' in the pseudo-code is helpful context but not a formal parameter.
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: 'Get monthly usage attribution' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also adds important scope information about multi-region data availability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_hourly_attributions' or 'get_usage_billable_summaries'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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. While it mentions pagination behavior, it doesn't explain the use case for monthly attribution data compared to hourly attribution or other usage tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, 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.
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 adds some behavioral context by stating 'This API requires a [registered application key]', which informs about authentication needs. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like read-only nature, rate limits, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a necessary authentication detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and authentication but lacks details on output format, error handling, or sibling differentiation. For a basic read operation, it's passable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a workflow by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_instances_v2' or 'create_workflows', which are also related to workflows, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an API requirement but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_workflow_instances_v2'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action creates a Downtime V2 (a behavioral trait), but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what the default downtime settings are, whether it's reversible (though 'unmute_host' exists), or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides crucial implementation detail (creates Downtime V2) with a helpful documentation link. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects. While it mentions the Downtime V2 implementation, it doesn't cover permissions needed, default duration, what 'mute' means operationally, or error conditions. The presence of 'unmute_host' as a sibling suggests reversibility, but this isn't stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to. It focuses on the action's effect rather than parameter details, which is suitable given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mute a host') and specifies the resource ('host'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mute_monitor' by focusing on hosts rather than monitors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_downtimes' which is conceptually related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by noting this creates a Downtime V2, implying it's for silencing host alerts. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_downtimes' or 'mute_monitor', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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 transactional behavior ('no partial success'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'restore' entails (e.g., reverting to a previous state). The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resource, while the second clarifies the all-or-nothing behavior. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's purpose and transactional behavior but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'restore' means in context. For a mutation tool with no structured support, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'specified IDs', which implies an input mechanism, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't add or detract value. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Restore') and resource ('dashboards'), specifying that restoration uses 'specified IDs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_dashboard' (singular) and 'create_dashboards', though it doesn't explicitly compare them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from other update/restore operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'specified IDs' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing deleted dashboards to restore. There's no mention of when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like 'update_dashboard' or 'create_dashboards'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks API key validity and returns a 403 for invalid keys, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, side effects, or response format for valid keys. The description adds some value 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by error behavior. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or fluff. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic operation and error case but doesn't explain what a successful validation returns or any broader context. For a validation tool with no structured fields, more detail on outcomes would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter information to add beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if the API key (not the APP key) is valid.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('API key'), and distinguishes between API and APP keys. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as there are no obvious validation siblings in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions checking API key validity and notes a 403 error for invalid keys. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other authentication checks), prerequisites, or integration context. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (updates restriction policies) and provides resource/relation details, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections ('Supported resources', 'Supported relations for resources') and uses bullet points and a table for readability. It's appropriately sized for the complexity, with no wasted sentences. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the core action more prominently before the details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (updates policies) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool does and the resource scope, but lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), error handling, and expected outputs. For a tool that modifies access controls, this is a moderate gap in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by explaining what the tool updates (restriction policies) and listing supported resources and relations, which provides context beyond the empty schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters, though it doesn't need to explain parameter details.
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: 'Updates the restriction policy associated with a resource.' This is a specific verb ('Updates') + resource ('restriction policy') combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'delete_restriction_policy' or 'get_restriction_policy' that exist in the sibling list, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implicit usage guidance by listing supported resources and their relations, suggesting when this tool might be applicable. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete a restriction policy), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list includes 'delete_restriction_policy' and 'get_restriction_policy', but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it returns all accounts at once. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all...'). There's no wasted words or redundant information—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what's listed but lacks details about return format, pagination, or error conditions. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has incomplete information about the tool's 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. It adds value by clarifying what's listed (GCP STS-enabled service accounts) without needing to compensate for parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all GCP STS-enabled service accounts'), specifying the scope ('configured in your Datadog account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on GCP accounts rather than other integration types like AWS or Azure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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. While the description implies it's for listing GCP accounts, there's no mention of prerequisites, related tools like 'create_integration_gcp_accounts', or filtering options. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'actively queried' means operationally. The description is functional but lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It front-loads the key action ('List tags and aggregations') and specifies the scope clearly. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately explains what it does. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and return format. For a read-only tool with simple inputs, it's minimally complete but could benefit from more context about outputs or usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, as none are needed. It implicitly references 'a given metric name' as context, but since no parameters exist, this doesn't affect the score negatively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List tags and aggregations') and the target resource ('that are actively queried on dashboards, notebooks, monitors, the Metrics Explorer, and using the API for a given metric name'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on active configurations rather than raw metric data or creation/deletion operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid metric name), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_metric_tags' or 'get_metric_all_tags' in the sibling list. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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 adds behavioral context by noting the endpoint's unavailability for the Government site, which is a useful constraint. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a note in bold. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the note could be integrated more smoothly, but overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides basic purpose and a site restriction. However, for a read operation (implied by 'Get'), it lacks details on return values, pagination, or error handling. The description is minimally adequate but has gaps in behavioral context, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of Workload Protection policies.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Workload Protection policies'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, as there are no direct siblings with similar names (e.g., no 'get_remote_config_products_cws_policies_filtered' or 'search_cws_policies'), so it lacks sibling distinction but is otherwise 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 some usage guidance with a note: 'This endpoint is not available for the Government (US1-FED) site.' This implies when not to use it based on site type, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other policy retrieval tools) or provide explicit context for selection. The guidance is limited to a restriction without broader usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: pagination mechanism with 'next_record_id', rate limiting advice (sleep 5 seconds), and data availability constraints (multi-region from March 1, 2023). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or error handling, but provides substantial operational guidance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a lengthy pseudo code example that could be more concise. While the example is helpful, it occupies significant space. The structure is logical but could be more streamlined.
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 complexity (pagination, rate limits) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides substantial context: pagination mechanism, rate limiting advice, and data availability. It doesn't explain the response format or attribution details, but covers key operational aspects adequately for a read-only tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that 'start_month' is a parameter in the pseudo code example, though it's not formally documented in the schema. This provides practical context for usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get hourly usage attribution' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'hourly usage attribution'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the granularity (hourly) and type (attribution), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_usage_monthly_attributions' or 'get_usage_hourly_usages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions multi-region data availability starting March 1, 2023, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_usage_monthly_attributions' or 'get_usage_hourly_usages'.
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 that this is a mutation operation ('Update'), mentions the HTTP method ('PUT'), and warns about side effects on data processing. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The behavioral disclosure is partial but adds some value beyond the basic 'update' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and important side effect. The second sentence adds technical detail about the HTTP method. Both sentences earn their place. Minor improvement could be front-loading the HTTP method note more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation with side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and a critical side effect but lacks information about permissions, error handling, response format, and specific prerequisites. For a mutation tool with potential data impact, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no misleading information about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the order of your archives' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's about archive ordering rather than creation, deletion, or configuration of archives themselves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ordering tools like 'update_logs_config_index_orders' or 'update_logs_config_pipeline_orders'.
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: 'Since logs are processed sequentially, reordering an archive may change the structure and content of the data processed by other archives.' This suggests when to be cautious but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs creating/deleting archives). No explicit 'when-not' guidance or named alternatives 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a rule and returns the updated object, which implies a mutation operation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether updates are idempotent, error conditions, or rate limits. The US1-FED note adds useful context, but overall behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the return value, and the third provides a critical note. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action. A minor deduction because the note could be integrated more seamlessly, but overall it's 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 complexity (update operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and a key constraint (US1-FED), but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or the structure of the returned object. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (properties: {}, type: object), and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain them. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and constraints without redundant parameter details.
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: 'Update a specific Workload Protection Agent rule.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('Workload Protection Agent rule'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_remote_config_products_cws_policy' or 'update_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule', which appear related but handle different rule types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance with the note about the US1-FED site restriction, which helps avoid errors in that specific context. However, it doesn't offer broader guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete operations for agent rules) or mention prerequisites like rule identification. The guidance is limited to a geographic/administrative constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the policy object on success, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error conditions, or rate limits. The Government site restriction adds some context but doesn't cover core behavioral aspects of the update operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and return value, and another providing a critical note. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for the note).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (an update operation with no parameters but potential behavioral nuances), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, return value, and a key restriction, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what constitutes a 'specific' policy (e.g., how it's identified). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. In such cases, the baseline is 4 because there's nothing for the description to compensate for. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on other aspects like the return value and restrictions.
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: 'Update a specific Workload Protection policy.' This specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('Workload Protection policy'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_remote_config_products_cws_agent_rule' or 'update_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rule', which also update specific policies but for different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance with the note about the Government (US1-FED) site restriction, which helps avoid incorrect usage in that context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete operations for policies) or provide broader context about prerequisites or typical workflows. The guidance is limited to a specific exclusion case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only check ('Check if...'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'safely' entails beyond the dashboard example. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying example. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that checks deletion safety, more context on what 'safely' means (e.g., dependencies, impacts) or the return format would enhance completeness. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if an SLO can be safely deleted.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('SLO'), and the example adds context about dashboard disruption. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'can_delete_monitors' or 'delete_slo', which are related but distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the example ('assure an SLO can be deleted without disrupting a dashboard'), suggesting it should be used before deletion to verify safety. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_slo' or provide clear prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that events are sent over HTTP and have a timestamp constraint, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation). It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a documentation link and a constraint. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with 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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a constraint but lacks details on authentication, response format, or error cases, which are important for a tool that sends data over HTTP.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implies that pipeline event data is sent, though it doesn't specify the data format or required fields. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('send your pipeline event') and target ('to your Datadog platform over HTTP'), specifying it's for CI pipelines. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on event submission rather than analytics or other operations, though it doesn't 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 usage for submitting pipeline events to Datadog and mentions a timestamp constraint (up to 18 hours in the past), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aggregate_ci_pipelines_analytics or other create_* tools. The link to documentation offers context but isn't direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context about the tool's effect (requests are ignored by WAF) and provides a URL for reviewing existing filters, which helps understand the operational context. However, with no annotations provided, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what the response looks like. It doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important context about what exclusion filters do and where to review them. There's no wasted verbiage or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks important details. It explains what the tool creates and its effect, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what the response contains, or error conditions. The URL reference is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. The mention of 'given parameters' is generic but acceptable given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new WAF exclusion filter'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for WAF exclusion filters rather than other security products, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'create' tools like 'create_remote_config_products_asm_waf_custom_rules'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some context by explaining what exclusion filters do ('A request matched by an exclusion filter will be ignored by the Application Security WAF product') and includes a URL for reviewing existing filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., custom rules), prerequisites, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explicitly stating two critical behavioral traits: 'permanent and cannot be reverted' and 'cannot recreate an index with the same name as deleted ones.' These are important destructive operation warnings that help the agent understand consequences. However, it doesn't cover other potential behaviors like permissions needed, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each add critical value. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential behavioral warnings. There's zero redundancy or unnecessary information, and the most important details (permanence and name restrictions) are front-loaded immediately after the basic action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the permanence and name reuse constraints, which are crucial for a deletion tool. However, it lacks information about what constitutes an 'index' in this context, potential side effects on dependent systems, or what confirmation/response to expect. Given the complexity of a deletion operation, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to explain nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified since the description focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameter documentation, which aligns with the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete an existing index') and resource ('from your organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_logs_config_archive' or 'delete_logs_config_custom_destination', which would require mentioning it's specifically for indexes rather than other log configuration types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions permanent deletion and name reuse restrictions, these are behavioral warnings rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or when this operation is appropriate versus other deletion tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns a list of services and their IDs, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It's efficiently structured and appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, it lacks details on response format, error cases, or integration context that would help an agent use it effectively. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally cover more behavioral aspects to be 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 tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant information, earning a baseline high score for this dimension.
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: 'Get the list of current AWS services that Datadog offers automatic log collection.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of current AWS services'), and context ('automatic log collection'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_integration_aws_logs' or 'create_integration_aws_logs_services', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Use returned service IDs with the services parameter for the Enable an AWS service log collection API endpoint.' This indicates when to use the output, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. The guidance is practical but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the access restriction for parent-level organizations, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what 'all usage' encompasses (e.g., time range, data format), or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial access information without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and access restriction, but without annotations, it should ideally mention that it's a read operation and describe the return format (e.g., what 'usage' includes). The lack of output schema means the description should compensate by explaining return values, which it doesn't do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. In such cases, the baseline score is 4 because there's no need for the description to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate here.
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: 'Get all usage across your account.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('all usage'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_usage_billable_summaries' or 'get_usage_estimated_costs', which also retrieve usage-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 by stating it's 'only accessible for parent-level organizations,' which is an important prerequisite. This helps users understand access requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for non-parent-level organizations or more specific usage queries, so it lacks full alternative 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches 'all custom metrics by hourly average' and specifies parameter usage, but lacks critical details: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or the expected output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then immediately provides usage rules for parameters. Both sentences are essential and front-loaded, with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates key details without any waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (fetching metrics with resolution options), the description covers the purpose and parameter usage adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions) and return values. The description does not fully compensate for these gaps, making it only minimally complete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters documented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that 'month' and 'day' parameters are used for data resolution, with one required and exclusive. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the empty schema, though it doesn't specify parameter types or formats, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all custom metrics by hourly average.' It specifies the resource (custom metrics) and the operation (get by hourly average), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metric' or 'get_metrics_v1/v2', which focus on different metric aspects, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidance: 'Use the month parameter to get a month-to-date data resolution or use the day parameter to get a daily resolution. One of the two is required, and only one of the two is allowed.' This specifies when to use each option and their exclusivity. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternative metric-fetching tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_metric' or 'get_metrics_v1/v2', leaving some contextual gaps.
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 adds valuable behavioral context by stating 'This list includes all users even if they are deactivated or unverified,' which clarifies the scope beyond a simple 'get users' operation. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two clear, efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important qualifying information. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is returned. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it lacks details about the response format, pagination, or any limitations. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' of the tool's behavior, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds semantic context about what data is returned (all users including deactivated/unverified). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful information for the agent.
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: 'Get the list of all users in the organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('users'), and adds useful scope information ('all users in the organization'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'search_users' that might exist in the broader context, though none are listed among the provided siblings.
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 through the phrase 'all users in the organization,' suggesting it's for retrieving a complete list rather than filtered subsets. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., search or filtered retrieval tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list includes many 'get_' tools but no obvious user-specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a list of issues matching a search query, uses event search syntax, and has a limit of 100 issues per request. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the limit is exceeded. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: it states the purpose, specifies the search syntax, and notes the result limit. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, syntax hint, and result limit, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned issues), error handling, or authentication. For a search tool, more behavioral context would be helpful, though the low complexity mitigates some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by explaining that searches use 'event search syntax' and are limited to 100 results, which provides context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail the syntax or query format, leaving some ambiguity.
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: 'Search issues endpoint allows you to programmatically search for issues within your organization.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('issues'), and scope ('within your organization'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling search tools like 'search_events' or 'search_logs_events', which would require more specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'search for issues within your organization' and 'following the event search syntax,' suggesting it's for error tracking issues. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_error_tracking_issue' for a single issue or other search tools for different data types). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 effectively explains the replacement behavior ('replacing your current configuration with the new one'), which is crucial for a mutation operation. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens to the old configuration data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely efficient - two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical behavioral information about the replacement nature of the update. 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It explains the replacement behavior which is essential, but doesn't cover error handling, response format, or permission requirements. Given the complexity of configuration updates, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameters (none). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral aspects rather than repeating the empty parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('archive configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_archive_orders' or 'update_logs_config_custom_destination', which also update configurations in the logs domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools (like 'create_logs_config_archives' or 'get_logs_config_archive'), or specific scenarios where this update method is appropriate versus other configuration management approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and importantly adds the critical behavioral detail: 'Using this method updates your pipeline configuration by **replacing** your current configuration with the new one.' This warns about destructive replacement behavior, which is valuable context beyond just 'update'. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second sentence (in bold) provides crucial behavioral information about replacement. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job but has gaps. It explains the replacement behavior well, but doesn't cover what happens on success/failure, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. For a tool that modifies pipeline configurations, more context about the impact would be helpful, though the replacement warning is valuable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a tool with no parameters. It focuses instead on the behavioral semantics of the update operation, which is exactly what's 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 tool's purpose: 'Update a given pipeline configuration to change it's processors or their order.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('pipeline configuration'), and what can be changed ('processors or their order'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_pipeline_orders' or 'create_logs_config_pipelines', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_pipelines' or 'delete_logs_config_pipeline'. The note about replacement behavior is useful but doesn't address usage context relative to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the administrative permission requirement, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as what 'Edit' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects), leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds crucial permission context. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the permission requirement but lacks details on what 'Edit' involves, expected inputs (though there are none), or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies roles, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't mislead about 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 the verb ('Edit') and resource ('a role'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_role_permissions' or 'update_role_users' that might also modify role-related data, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
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 about when to use this tool: 'Can only be used with application keys belonging to administrators.' This establishes a prerequisite (administrative permissions) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'create_roles' or 'delete_role', nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (which are minimal technical schema annotations). It mentions the accessibility requirement and links to Restriction Policy documentation, which helps understand the tool's operational context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, or what happens if the deployment fails.
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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides important prerequisite context. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. A perfect score would require even more concise phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (publishing apps with access control implications), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It mentions the Restriction Policy requirement but doesn't explain what the tool actually returns or what happens after publishing. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should ideally provide more complete operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the operational context and prerequisites for using the tool effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Publish an app') and the resource ('for use by other users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_app_builder_apps' or 'delete_app_builder_app_deployment', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear contextual guidance about when to use this tool: after creating an app and before it's accessible to users. It mentions the prerequisite of setting a Restriction Policy if one doesn't exist, which is helpful usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('List'), returns paginated results with a link to documentation, and matches a search query. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which are important for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences: one states the purpose, one provides usage guidance, and one notes pagination with a link. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the pagination note is in brackets and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and pagination behavior, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or response format. For a read tool with no structured data, more context on these aspects would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It implies the tool might accept a search query (from 'match a Audit Logs search query'), but doesn't specify how this is provided, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns events that match a Audit Logs search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Audit Logs events'), and scope ('search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_audit_events', which might offer similar functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest Audit Logs events.' This implies when to use it (for viewing recent audit events) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'search_audit_events' from the sibling list. The guidance is present but lacks specificity about tool 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns paginated results (via the link to documentation) and matches events based on a search query. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but the pagination disclosure is valuable 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key behavior (pagination), and the second provides usage guidance. The link to external documentation is concise and relevant. However, the first sentence could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the purpose more directly without the redundant 'List endpoint' phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, pagination behavior, and usage context, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no structured fields, it should do more to compensate, especially regarding output expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by implying that events are filtered via a search query (though not parameterized in this tool), which helps the agent understand the tool's context. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4.
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: 'List endpoint returns events that match an events search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('events'), and scope ('match an events search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event' (singular), which might have different functionalities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest events.' This implies the tool is for viewing recent events, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_events' or 'get_event'. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit comparison with 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 that the tool is a read-only endpoint (implied by 'returns') and defines behavioral traits like time-based criteria for 'active' and 'up', which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by clarifying definitions. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a simple read operation. It explains what the tool does and defines key terms, but lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON structure) and any limitations, which could be helpful for an agent despite the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant param info, earning a baseline 4 as it adds value beyond the schema by explaining what the tool returns and the definitions of 'active' and 'up'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('total number of active and up hosts'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's about host totals rather than other metrics like logs, monitors, or integrations. It also defines key terms ('active' and 'up') to 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other host-related tools (e.g., 'get_hosts' for detailed host lists) or sibling tools for different data types. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination ('Results are paginated') and rate limiting ('rate limited to 300 requests per hour'). This adds valuable context beyond basic functionality, though it could mention authentication needs or error handling. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, usage, and behavioral details, with a reference link for pagination. Each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the link more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read-only list tool with pagination and rate limits), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key behaviors but lacks details on authentication, error responses, or example outputs. It's adequate for basic use but has gaps for full agent guidance, especially without an output schema to clarify return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary detail and focuses on other aspects.
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: 'List endpoint returns spans that match a span search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('spans'), and scope ('match a span search query'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_spans_events' or 'aggregate_spans_analytics', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest spans.' This implies a context for viewing recent data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_spans_events' for filtered searches or 'aggregate_spans_analytics' for aggregated data). It lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, so it's only implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: 1) results are paginated (linking to pagination documentation), and 2) it uses a specific search query syntax (linking to search syntax documentation). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains pagination behavior, and the third provides usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the documentation links could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides adequate coverage for a search/list tool. It explains the search capability and pagination behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps for a tool that presumably returns complex 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does provide context about the search query mechanism through documentation links. This adds value beyond the empty schema, earning a score above the baseline 3 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'returns CI Visibility pipeline events that match a search query' and 'List endpoint' indicates it's a read operation. It specifies the resource type (CI Visibility pipeline events) and action (search/list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_ci_tests_events' or 'get_ci_pipelines_events' beyond mentioning search capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to build complex events filtering and search.' This implies when to use it (for complex filtering/search) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like simpler listing tools. No comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 excels by detailing critical behavioral traits: payload size limits (5MB max, 1MB per log), truncation behavior for oversized logs, compression recommendations, timestamp constraints (up to 18 hours in the past), and comprehensive HTTP status codes with retry guidance. This provides the agent with essential operational context beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with detailed limits and status codes. While this information is valuable, it could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points or sections). Some sentences, like the list of status codes, are lengthy and could be condensed without losing clarity, reducing overall conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (sending logs with specific constraints) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers behavioral details, limits, and error handling. However, it lacks information on authentication requirements (e.g., API key usage) and does not mention sibling tools, leaving minor gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral aspects rather than parameters. It does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
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: 'Send your logs to your Datadog platform over HTTP.' It specifies the verb ('send'), resource ('logs'), and destination ('Datadog platform'), making the action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'logs_send' or 'logs_search_events', which could cause confusion in tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists technical limits and status codes but does not mention sibling tools like 'logs_send' or 'logs_search_events', nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'update'), uses PUT method to replace the current order, and warns about downstream impacts on data processing. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers essential mutation behavior and consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences and a note. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains consequences, and the note clarifies the HTTP method. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the PUT method note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool affecting pipeline order), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the impact, but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and behavior. This meets the baseline for a tool with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update the order of your pipelines.' It specifies the resource (pipelines) and action (update order). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_logs_config_pipeline' or 'update_logs_config_archive_orders' beyond the name, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context by explaining that logs are processed sequentially and reordering may affect other pipelines. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_logs_config_pipeline' for individual pipeline settings) or any prerequisites. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool updates tag configurations, includes a mode toggle ('exclude_tags_mode' to switch between allow-list and deny-list), specifies permission requirements ('Manage Tags for Metrics'), and notes a prerequisite ('tag configuration to be created first'). This covers mutation behavior, auth needs, and constraints, though it lacks details on rate limits or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on mode behavior, permissions, and prerequisites. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient and avoids waste, earning a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with permission and prerequisite constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It covers purpose, behavior, and constraints but does not explain the return values or error cases. For a tool with such operational requirements, more detail on outcomes or examples would improve completeness. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters (properties is empty), and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by explaining the 'exclude_tags_mode' behavior, which is not in the schema since there are no parameters. This provides useful semantic context beyond the schema, though it's not about specific parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description enhances it with operational details.
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: 'Update the tag configuration of a metric or percentile aggregations of a distribution metric or custom aggregations of a count, rate, or gauge metric.' It specifies the verb ('update') and the resource ('tag configuration'), and distinguishes the types of metrics affected. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_metric_tags' or 'delete_metric_tags', which are present in the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus those.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: it mentions that 'Can only be used with application keys from users with the `Manage Tags for Metrics` permission' and 'This endpoint requires a tag configuration to be created first.' This gives prerequisites but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_metric_tags' or 'delete_metric_tags' (which are sibling tools). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, falling short of naming specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the authentication requirement ('requires a registered application key'), which is crucial for usage. However, it doesn't describe what 'cancel' means operationally (e.g., whether it stops execution immediately, allows restart, affects related resources, or returns confirmation). The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical authentication information. There's zero waste or redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and authentication requirement adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally describe behavioral aspects like what 'cancel' entails, whether it's reversible, or what confirmation is returned. The authentication note is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a tool with no inputs. It focuses on the action and authentication requirement instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Cancels') and resource ('a specific execution of a given workflow'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_workflow' or 'create_workflow_instances' by focusing on cancellation of executions rather than creation or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an authentication requirement but doesn't specify prerequisites like having an existing workflow instance ID or differentiate from other cancellation tools like 'downtimes_cancel'. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations only indicate the schema structure (ZodObject with passthrough), but the description explains the async polling behavior ('Subsequent requests will always repeat the above'), the four possible status return values ('created', 'waiting', 'checked and ok', 'error'), and that it checks for Lambda existence. This provides crucial operational details 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by important behavioral details about input equivalence and polling, then bullet points for return statuses. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise by combining some sentences, but it's efficient overall.
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 complexity (async permission checking with multiple status outcomes), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description does a good job of providing necessary context. It explains the purpose, input relationship, polling behavior, and possible return statuses. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but otherwise it's quite complete for a zero-parameter async checking tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description adds value by explaining that 'The input is the same as for Enable an AWS service log collection,' which provides semantic context about what inputs would be expected if this tool had parameters. This compensates for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test if permissions are present to add a log-forwarding triggers for the given services and AWS account.' It specifies the verb ('Test'), resource ('permissions'), and scope ('log-forwarding triggers for given services and AWS account'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws_logs' or 'create_integration_aws_logs_services', which appear related but 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 some usage context by stating 'The input is the same as for Enable an AWS service log collection' and 'this endpoint can be polled intermittently instead of blocking.' This implies when to use it (for async permission checking) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 usefully discloses that the tool supports two HTTP methods (POST and PUT) with different update behaviors—POST adds to existing config, PUT replaces it. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'create' operation. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, 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 efficiently structured in three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the next two explain the behavioral nuance of POST vs. PUT. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and method behavior but lacks details on permissions, response format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
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: 'Create a Datadog-Azure integration.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Datadog-Azure integration'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws' or 'create_integration_gcp_accounts', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by explaining the difference between POST (adds to existing configuration) and PUT (replaces configuration). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other integration tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the creation action and includes important notes about synthetic monitors and log monitor requirements, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely long and poorly structured for an AI agent. While the initial sentence is clear, the bulk consists of detailed documentation about monitor types and query syntax that belongs in external documentation rather than a tool description. This violates front-loading principles and includes excessive technical detail that doesn't efficiently help an agent select and invoke the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of monitor creation and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides substantial technical detail about monitor types and queries. However, it lacks information about authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, and other operational aspects. While it covers the 'what' comprehensively, it misses important 'how' and 'what happens after' context needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by providing extensive semantic context about monitor types and query formats, which effectively documents the expected input structure despite the empty schema. This adds significant value beyond what the schema provides, explaining how to construct valid monitor configurations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships 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 clear statement of purpose: 'Create a monitor using the specified options.' This explicitly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('monitor'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_monitor', 'delete_monitor', or 'list_monitors'. The detailed breakdown of monitor types and query formats further clarifies what kind of monitor creation is supported.
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 by listing all supported monitor types and their corresponding query formats. It explicitly notes that 'Synthetic monitors are created through the Synthetics API' and 'Log monitors require an unscoped App Key', offering specific prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_monitor_v1' or other sibling creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the optional configuration relationship, rules relationship constraints (must be null or empty array), and that the new group is ordered last within the configuration. This adds useful context about creation behavior, though it doesn't cover aspects like permissions, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is reasonably informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Create a scanning group') and uses four concise sentences to cover constraints and ordering. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a creation tool by explaining relationships and ordering. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or what the response contains, which could be important for a mutation operation. It is complete enough for basic use but has gaps in full operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that the request 'MAY include a configuration relationship' and specifies rules relationship constraints, which adds semantic meaning about what can be included in the request body. This effectively addresses the lack of parameters, though it doesn't detail exact parameter names or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a scanning group') and specifies the resource ('scanning group'), which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning configuration and rules relationships, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group' or 'delete_sensitive_data_scanner_config_group'. This provides a specific verb+resource but lacks direct sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by detailing constraints on configuration and rules relationships (e.g., 'rules cannot be created at the same time'), which suggests when to use this tool for initial group creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update or delete tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This provides some implied guidance but lacks explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the rule is added last in order, mandatory relationships, exclusive attribute choices, and default scanning behavior. This covers creation logic and constraints well, though it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error responses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: four sentences that each convey critical information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main action and ordering, followed by specific constraints, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a scanning rule with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description provides good coverage of creation logic and constraints. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool. It's adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are defined. The description compensates by detailing the required content of the request body (group relationship, pattern choice, attribute handling), adding semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. This is valuable, though not exhaustive for all possible fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a scanning rule') and resource ('in a sensitive data scanner group'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_sensitive_data_scanner_config_groups' or 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by specifying constraints (e.g., 'ordered last', 'MUST include a group relationship', exclusive choice between pattern types), which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_sensitive_data_scanner_config_rule' or prerequisites, keeping it at an implied level.
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 correctly identifies this as a destructive operation ('Deletes') and specifies permission requirements. However, it doesn't describe what happens after deletion (irreversible? confirmation needed?), error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the action, the second specifies permission requirements. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more. While it covers the basic purpose and permission requirements, it doesn't explain what 'tag configuration' means, what the deletion affects, whether it's reversible, or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero structured metadata, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation beyond what the schema already provides (which is nothing).
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 ('Deletes') and the target ('a metric's tag configuration'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_metric_tags' vs 'delete_tags_host' or 'update_metric_tags', which would require more specificity about what exactly is being deleted.
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 explicit usage context by stating 'Can only be used with application keys from users with the `Manage Tags for Metrics` permission.' This gives clear prerequisites for when the tool can be invoked. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_metric_tags' or 'create_metric_tags'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates and downloads a file (implying a read operation that produces output), and notes a site restriction (US1-FED not supported). However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'currently active' means (e.g., latest vs. specific version). For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but lacks depth, warranting a 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence explains the core functionality, and the second provides a critical note. Every sentence adds value (the note about US1-FED is essential for correct usage). There's no fluff or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a download tool with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and includes a key restriction, but lacks details on output format (e.g., file type beyond .policy, structure), error handling, or deployment steps. For a tool that generates a file, more context on the result would be helpful, so it's a 3.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as the description needn't compensate for any gaps. It correctly focuses on the tool's action without unnecessary param details.
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: it generates a Workload Protection policy file from active agent rules and downloads it as a .policy file for deployment. This is specific (verb: generates/downloads, resource: policy file) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_remote_config_products_cws_policies' (which likely lists policies rather than downloading them). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 this tool: to download a policy file for deploying to agents. It also includes an important exclusion: 'This endpoint is not available for the Government (US1-FED) site.' This gives explicit guidance on when not to use it. However, it doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., what to use for US1-FED) or compare with sibling tools, so it's not a 5.
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 an access restriction (parent-level organizations only), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not cover other traits like read-only vs. destructive nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical access restriction. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with access restrictions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and access but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter details are needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs without unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('billable usage across your account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_usage_summaries' or 'get_usage_estimated_costs', which might offer similar usage data, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying that the endpoint is 'only accessible for parent-level organizations,' which helps determine when to use it based on account type. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as other usage-related tools, so it falls short of explicit alternatives 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about data availability timing and access restrictions for parent-level organizations. However, it doesn't describe the return format, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two critical constraints. Every sentence earns its place with essential information. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (simple complexity) but also no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to be complete. While it covers purpose, timing constraints, and access restrictions, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (cost data format, time periods covered, etc.). For a usage/cost reporting tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get historical cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('historical cost'), and scope ('multi-org and single root-org accounts'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_billable_summaries' or 'get_usage_estimated_costs', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool: 'Cost data for a given month becomes available no later than the 16th of the following month' and 'This endpoint is only accessible for parent-level organizations.' These are helpful usage constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools for different usage scenarios, which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 effectively adds context beyond basic purpose: it mentions pagination ('Results are paginated'), which is crucial for understanding how results are returned, and it warns about misuse for archiving, hinting at performance or data management considerations. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral notes (pagination) and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear with bullet-like separation. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an AI 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?
Given the complexity (a search tool with no parameters but pagination and archiving warnings), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, pagination, and a key usage warning, but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no structured support, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a minimum viable level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none. It adds value by implying the tool uses a 'log search query' for filtering, but without parameters, the baseline is high. A score of 4 reflects that the description compensates well for the lack of parameters by explaining the query-based nature.
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: 'List endpoint returns logs that match a log search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('logs'), and scope ('match a log search query'), making the function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'logs_aggregate_analytics' or 'search_events', which reduces clarity slightly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to build complex logs filtering and search' and advises against using it for archiving, pointing to Datadog archive capabilities instead. This gives implied guidance on when to use it (complex filtering/search) and when not to (archiving), but it lacks explicit alternatives or comparisons with sibling tools, such as 'logs_aggregate_analytics' for analytics vs. listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: (1) 'Results are paginated' with a link to pagination documentation, and (2) it's for 'complex RUM events filtering and search.' However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'RUM search query' format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences plus a documentation link. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the link offers additional technical details. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (search/filtering tool), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It mentions pagination and complex filtering, but doesn't explain the expected query format, result structure, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a search tool with no structured metadata, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does imply filtering/search capabilities ('match a RUM search query') which aligns with the empty schema (likely query parameters handled elsewhere). Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds appropriate context about the search functionality.
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: 'List endpoint returns RUM events that match a RUM search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('RUM events'), and scope ('that match a RUM search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rum_events' or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to build complex RUM events filtering and search.' This implies the tool is for complex filtering/search scenarios, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_rum_events' (likely simpler retrieval) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics' (aggregation-focused). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 effectively communicates key behavioral traits: pagination ('Results are paginated') and rate limiting ('rate limited to 300 requests per hour'). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling, or response format, but covers important operational constraints adequately for a read-only 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 perfectly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each add distinct value (purpose, pagination note, usage guidance, rate limit). No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. The markdown link for pagination details is appropriately minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search/filtering capability), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It mentions pagination and rate limits but doesn't describe the response format, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a search tool that likely returns structured data, more context about outputs would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose involves 'span search query' filtering, which implies some query mechanism exists (likely through the endpoint itself or context). This provides semantic context beyond the empty schema, justifying above baseline.
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: 'List endpoint returns spans that match a span search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('spans'), and scope ('match a span search query'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_spans_events' or 'search_logs_events', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to build complex spans filtering and search.' This implies when to use it (for complex filtering/search) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools like 'get_spans_events' is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation tool ('Update'), specifies prerequisites ('Requires an existing tenant_name and client_id'), and describes overwrite behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action and prerequisites, explaining overwrite behavior, and providing field-specific guidance. There is zero wasted language and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more heavy lifting. While it covers the core update mechanics and field behavior well, it lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or broader system impacts. The description is complete for basic usage but insufficient for full operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains that fields are supplied in a payload and provides semantic guidance about field handling (overwrite behavior, special fields for tenant/client ID, omission to leave unchanged), which adds value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a Datadog-Azure integration'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_integration_azures' and 'delete_integration_azures' by focusing on modification, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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: when updating an existing integration, requiring 'tenant_name' and 'client_id'. It also gives guidance on field handling (overwrite behavior, special fields for tenant/client ID updates). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: results can be sent to email addresses, non-deterministic ordering for concurrent calls on the same metric, the 'exclude_tags_mode' constraint, and permission requirements ('Manage Tags for Metrics'). This covers mutation effects, concurrency behavior, and authorization needs, though it lacks details on rate limits 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. It front-loads the purpose but includes multiple operational details (e.g., email results, concurrency behavior, exclusion mode) in a dense paragraph. Some sentences could be more streamlined, but all information is relevant and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (bulk tag configuration with concurrency and permission constraints), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and authorization. However, it lacks details on response format or error cases, which could be helpful for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description need not compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create and define a list of queryable tag keys for a set of existing count, gauge, rate, and distribution metrics.' It specifies the verb ('create and define'), resource ('tag keys'), and scope ('for a set of existing metrics'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_metric_tags' or 'delete_metrics_config_bulk_tags' beyond mentioning the delete method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Metrics are selected by passing a metric name prefix' and 'Use the Delete method of this API path to remove tag configurations.' It also mentions an alternative action (delete) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other tag-related tools like 'create_metric_tags' or when not to use it (e.g., for individual metrics vs. bulk).
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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (removes live version), creates a new deployment object with a nil app_version_id, and indicates the app remains updatable and republishable. This covers the mutation impact and side effects adequately for a 0-parameter 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 front-loaded with the core action ('Unpublish an app, removing the live version of the app'), followed by important details about the deployment object and future republishing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, its effects, and future implications. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or response format, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs, maintaining a baseline score of 4 as per the rules for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('Unpublish an app') and the resource ('app'), specifying that it removes the live version. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_app_builder_app_deployment' by focusing on unpublishing rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to remove a live app version, and mentions that the app can be republished later, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete operations) or any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a read-only list operation (implied by 'List endpoint'), supports search queries with a linked syntax guide, and includes pagination behavior with a linked reference. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: one stating the core functionality, one detailing search and pagination behavior with helpful links, and one providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a searchable, paginated list operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description does a good job of covering essential context: purpose, search capability, pagination, and usage intent. However, it doesn't describe the response format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results, especially without an output schema. This minor gap prevents a score of 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, but it does mention that events 'match a search query' and results are paginated, which provides useful context about how the tool operates. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds some value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns CI Visibility pipeline events that match a search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('CI Visibility pipeline events'), and scope ('that match a search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_ci_pipelines_events' or 'get_ci_tests_events', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest pipeline events.' This implies when to use it (for viewing recent events) but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_ci_pipelines_events' or 'aggregate_ci_pipelines_analytics'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.
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 key behavioral traits: the tool accepts a search query (with link to syntax), results are paginated (with link to pagination guide), and it's for listing/latest events. This covers search capability, pagination, and read-only nature (implied by 'list' and 'see'), though it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core functionality with links, second explains pagination behavior, third gives usage context. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (searchable, paginated list operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides good coverage. It explains the search capability, pagination, and purpose. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any error conditions, which would be helpful for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by explaining that search queries can be used (though not as parameters) and mentioning pagination behavior. For a zero-parameter tool, this provides useful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns CI Visibility test events that match a search query.' It specifies the resource (CI Visibility test events) and the action (list/search). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_ci_tests_events' or 'get_ci_pipelines_events', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest test events.' This implies it's for viewing recent events but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_ci_tests_events' (which appears to be a sibling tool). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: default time range (past 3 hours), data retention (7 days), and pagination (max 1000 results). This covers scope, limitations, and output handling, which is valuable for agent decision-making. No contradictions exist, and it adds meaningful context beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a search tool with no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, time constraints, retention, and pagination, which are crucial for usage. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of results) and error handling, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by implying search parameters ('by name, alias, or tag'), which adds semantic meaning about how to filter results. However, it does not specify if these are optional or required, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this meets that with added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'searching for hosts by name, alias, or tag.' It specifies the resource (hosts) and the search criteria, making it distinct from generic list operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hosts_totals' or other search tools, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning default inclusion of hosts 'within the past 3 hours' and retention of '7 days,' which suggests when data is available. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_resources' or 'get_hosts_totals') and does not state any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.
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 effectively describes pagination behavior (cursor-based, how to fetch pages, termination condition) and mentions optional filtering, which are key operational traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, preventing a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by pagination details in clear, step-by-step instructions. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an agent.
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 complexity (pagination, filtering) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects like purpose, pagination mechanics, and termination. However, it does not fully address potential complexities like error cases, response format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining pagination parameters ('page[cursor]', 'page[size]') and filtering behavior, which compensates for the lack of structured parameters and provides practical usage semantics beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns all metrics that can be configured in the Metrics Summary page or with Metrics without Limits™ (matching additional filters if specified).' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('metrics'), and scope ('all metrics that can be configured...'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v1' or 'get_metric' that might exist in the list, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance through pagination instructions and mentions 'additional filters if specified,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_metrics_v1' or other metric-related siblings. It offers operational guidance (how to paginate) rather than contextual when-to-use advice.
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 pagination behavior ('Results are paginated') with a link to documentation, which is valuable. It also implies this is a read-only operation ('List endpoint'), though it doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like permissions or rate limits. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what's in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second adds pagination behavior, and the third provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search/filtering operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description does a good job. It covers purpose, behavior (pagination), and usage context. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like (e.g., event structure) or any authentication requirements, leaving some gaps for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description mentions 'Audit search query' which hints at filtering capabilities, but since there are no parameters, this doesn't add or detract significantly. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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: 'List endpoint returns Audit Logs events that match an Audit search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Audit Logs events'), and action ('match an Audit search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_audit_events' or other search tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to build complex Audit Logs events filtering and search.' This implies when to use it (for complex filtering/search) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'get_audit_events' or other search tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read-only list operation (implied by 'List endpoint'), supports search queries via a specific syntax (linked), and results are paginated (linked to logs pagination). This covers essential traits like functionality, input constraints, and output handling, though it could mention rate limits or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise sentences that add critical behavioral details (search syntax and pagination) and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (search and pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description does a good job of providing necessary context. It explains the search query mechanism and pagination behavior, which are crucial for correct usage. However, it doesn't detail the output format or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no structured output 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that the tool uses a search query (via a linked syntax guide) and pagination (via a linked guide), which effectively describes the implicit parameters or usage context. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns CI Visibility test events that match a search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('CI Visibility test events'), and scope ('match a search query'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_ci_pipelines_events' or 'search_events', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to build complex events filtering and search.' This implies the tool is for complex queries, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ci_tests_events' (which appears to be a simpler getter) or other search tools. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the idempotent behavior (returning older embed for duplicate queries) and hints at complexity with template variables via external docs. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or output format, but adds useful context beyond a basic 'creates' statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a critical note and a reference for advanced features. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the creation action and idempotency, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what the returned embed contains. For a creation tool with no structured annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate here. It earns a baseline 4 because it compensates by explaining behavioral aspects relevant to invocation, like the duplicate query handling.
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: 'Creates a new embeddable graph.' It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('embeddable graph'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_graph_embeds' or 'get_graph_embed', which are read operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context with the note about duplicate queries returning existing embeds, which helps avoid unnecessary calls. It also references template variables with a documentation link for advanced use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among 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?
Annotations are minimal (Zod schema metadata) and do not provide behavioral hints like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description adds some context by implying this is a configuration step ('save the configuration') and has a prerequisite, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects. With no annotations covering behavior, the description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage prerequisites adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and does not explain what 'services' refers to or the expected outcome. For a configuration tool with no structured behavioral annotations, the description is minimal but functional, meeting basic needs with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage (since there are no parameters). The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, so it exceeds the baseline of 3 for a zero-parameter tool.
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: 'Enable automatic log collection for a list of services.' It specifies the verb ('Enable'), resource ('automatic log collection'), and scope ('for a list of services'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws_logs' or 'create_integration_aws_logs_services_asyncs', which limits the score to 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'This should be run after running `CreateAWSLambdaARN` to save the configuration.' It specifies a prerequisite (run 'CreateAWSLambdaARN' first) and implies a sequence of operations, which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: data availability constraints (current/previous month only), latency (72-hour delay), and access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). It also mentions the alternative endpoint for historical data. However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with three sentences that each add distinct value: purpose statement, data availability constraints, and access restrictions. There's no redundancy or wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important limitations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides good context about data constraints and access restrictions. However, for a cost estimation tool, it doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., cost breakdowns, currency, time granularity) or potential error conditions. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally cover return values more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral context. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by providing useful operational context without attempting to document non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get estimated cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the resource (estimated cost) and scope (multi-org/single root-org accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_historical_costs' or 'get_usage_projected_costs' beyond mentioning the historical alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it specifies that estimated cost data is only available for current/previous month with up to 72-hour delay, and explicitly names an alternative ('/historical_cost endpoint') for historical data. It also states access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this versus other sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_projected_costs'.
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 effectively describes important behavioral traits: the atomic update requirement for certain fields and the restrictions on modifying default rules. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or whether the update is idempotent, but provides more behavioral context than many descriptions with zero annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured. Three sentences cover: 1) the core purpose, 2) the atomic update requirement for specific fields, and 3) restrictions on default rules. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words. The most critical information appears first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral constraints but lacks important context. It doesn't mention what constitutes a 'rule' in this context, what the response looks like, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (security monitoring domain), more context about the rule object structure would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral constraints rather than parameter documentation. It mentions fields like 'cases', 'queries', and 'options' that are presumably part of the rule object being updated, adding useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing rule.' It specifies the resource (security monitoring rule) and action (update). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_security_monitoring_cloud_workload_security_agent_rule' or 'update_security_monitoring_configuration_security_filter', which are also update operations on related security objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage guidelines for specific scenarios: it explains how to update fields like 'cases', 'queries', or 'options' (must include whole field), and specifies restrictions for default rules (can only update enabled status, notifications, or tags). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other update tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or rule existence.
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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the async nature ('Done async'), polling requirement ('can be repeatedly polled'), and detailed status return values (created, waiting, checked and ok, error). This covers execution mode, expected usage pattern, and outcome states, which are crucial for an agent to handle this tool correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: first sentence states the purpose, second provides input reference and async nature, then bullet points detail return statuses. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, usage pattern, and detailed return statuses. It's complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to use it. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but overall it's well-rounded for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description adds value by stating 'Input is the same as for `EnableAWSLogServices`', which provides semantic context about what inputs are expected (by reference) even though none are formally defined. This is helpful guidance for an agent.
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: 'Test if permissions are present to add log-forwarding triggers for the given services and AWS account.' It specifies the verb ('Test'), resource ('permissions'), and scope ('log-forwarding triggers for services and AWS account'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws_logs_services' or 'create_integration_aws_logs_check_asyncs', which appear related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Input is the same as for `EnableAWSLogServices`' and 'Done async, so can be repeatedly polled in a non-blocking fashion until the async request completes.' This gives practical guidance on when to use it (for async permission checking) and how to handle it (polling). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is restricted to MSP customers and describes the action (removal from hierarchy, 30-day trial placement), which implies a mutation with potential billing or access changes. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states availability, and the second describes the action and outcome. It is front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but covers the core purpose and eligibility. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, response format, error handling) that would help an agent invoke it correctly, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as 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 clearly states the specific action ('Removes a child organization from the hierarchy') and resource ('master organization'), with additional context about placing the child organization on a 30-day trial. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on organizational hierarchy management, unlike other tools for analytics, monitoring, or resource creation.
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 explicit context: 'Only available for MSP customers' specifies the user eligibility. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other org management tools like 'update_org' or 'delete_org'), nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions beyond customer type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination ('Results are paginated'), that it's a read operation ('List endpoint'), and a limitation ('latest logs'). It also mentions an alternative for archiving. However, it doesn't cover potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a read tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by pagination info, usage guidance, and an alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The markdown links are concise and relevant. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behavior (pagination, latest logs, archiving alternative). However, for a log listing tool, it could benefit from more detail on output format (e.g., structure of returned logs) or error handling, which would make it more complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds value by implying the tool accepts a 'log search query' (though not explicitly as a parameter) and mentions pagination behavior. Since there are no parameters to document, this is strong, but not perfect as it could clarify the query mechanism more explicitly.
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: 'List endpoint returns logs that match a log search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('logs'), and scope ('that match a log search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_logs_events' or 'logs_aggregate_analytics', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest logs' and offers an alternative for archiving ('consider use of the Datadog archive capabilities instead'). It also mentions pagination. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., 'search_logs_events'), which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates and downloads a file, which implies a read operation with a side effect of file creation. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The note about the Government site is useful context but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality, and the second provides a critical restriction. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (file generation/download), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but omits details on the output format (beyond '.policy' file), potential errors, or deployment implications. The Government site note is helpful but doesn't fully address the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('generates', 'downloads') and resources ('Workload Protection policy file', '.policy file'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on policy file generation and download, unlike other tools that handle creation, deletion, or listing of security rules or policies.
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 generate and download a policy file from active agent rules for deployment. It includes a specific restriction note for the Government site. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the mapping data is 'updated on a monthly cadence,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond organization level, or what the output format looks like. The description adds some value 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, update cadence, and access restriction. Each sentence adds essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering the basics: purpose, update frequency, and access restrictions. However, for a tool that likely returns structured mapping data, the description lacks details on the output format, which could hinder an agent's ability to use the results effectively. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and constraints without redundant parameter information, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs and resources: 'Get a mapping of billing dimensions to the corresponding keys for the supported usage metering public API endpoints.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on billing dimension mappings, unlike other 'get_' tools that retrieve usage data or summaries.
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: 'This endpoint is only accessible to parent-level organizations.' It also mentions the update cadence ('monthly'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.
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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the temporal availability constraint (current month, available around 12th) and access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format, but provides substantial operational context for a read-only 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 perfectly concise and well-structured: three sentences that each provide essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by availability constraints, then access restrictions - an optimal information hierarchy.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness: purpose, temporal constraints, and access requirements. It doesn't describe the return format or potential error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations/output schema, it covers the most critical contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on operational constraints. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get projected cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the resource (projected cost) and scope (multi-org and single root-org accounts), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_usage_estimated_costs or get_usage_historical_costs, which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use the tool: 'Projected cost data is only available for the current month and becomes available around the 12th of the month.' It also specifies access restrictions: 'This endpoint is only accessible for parent-level organizations.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different cost data needs.
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 adds important behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It reveals that this tool sends emails (an external side effect) and has a prerequisite about email addresses being in a share_list. Since annotations don't provide readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries more burden and adequately describes the mutation action 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second adds a critical constraint. There's no wasted language, and the most important information comes first.
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 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides complete context about what the tool does and its constraints. It explains the action, target, and prerequisite. The only minor gap is lack of information about what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation, error handling), but this is reasonable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly indicates that email addresses are specified elsewhere (implied context). No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Send emails'), the resource ('links to access a given authenticated shared dashboard'), and the target recipients ('specified email addresses'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on invitation emails rather than dashboard creation or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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: when you need to send dashboard access invitations via email. It specifies a prerequisite ('Email addresses must already belong to the authenticated shared dashboard's share_list'), which helps determine appropriate usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Create'), requires specific account features and support enablement, and mentions response details (org.public_id, api_key.key, application_key.hash). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by prerequisites and response details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a write operation with no parameters but significant prerequisites), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage conditions, and response details. However, it lacks output schema and does not fully address behavioral aspects like error cases or permissions, though it compensates with response information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, but it adds value by explaining the response structure, compensating for the lack of output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a child organization') and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_org_downgrade' or 'update_org'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools (e.g., 'create_users'), though the resource type is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states when to use this tool: it requires the multi-organization account feature and must be enabled by contacting support. This provides clear prerequisites and context for usage, though it does not mention alternatives since siblings include no direct alternatives for creating child organizations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a creation tool (implying mutation), requires specific permissions ('Manage Tags for Metrics'), and includes an optional mode ('exclude_tags_mode') that changes behavior from allow-list to deny-list. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or response format, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by optional features and permissions. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for metric tags with behavioral options), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on response format, error conditions, or examples, which could help an agent invoke it more effectively, keeping it from 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the optional 'exclude_tags_mode' parameter's semantics (changing behavior from allow-list to deny-list) and mentioning percentile aggregations, which provides context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create and define a list of queryable tag keys') on a specific resource ('for an existing count/gauge/rate/distribution metric'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_metric_tags' or 'delete_metric_tags' by focusing on creation rather than modification or deletion, and from generic metric tools by specifying tag management for metrics.
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: for defining queryable tags on existing metrics, optionally with percentile aggregations, and with an 'exclude_tags_mode' option. It mentions the required permission ('Manage Tags for Metrics') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context implies it's for creation rather than updates or deletions.
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 effectively describes key traits: the destructive nature ('Delete all custom lists'), the bulk operation scope, the email notification capability, and the specific permission requirement. However, it lacks details on error handling, confirmation prompts, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds operational details (selection and notification), and the third specifies permissions. Each sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and waste-free.
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 complexity (destructive bulk operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and permissions. However, it lacks details on the return value or confirmation process, which would be helpful for an agent invoking a destructive tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description adds value by explaining the selection mechanism ('by passing a metric name prefix') and the email notification feature, which are not captured in the schema. This compensates well, though it doesn't detail how the prefix is specified without 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 specific action ('Delete all custom lists of queryable tag keys'), the target resources ('for a set of existing count, gauge, rate, and distribution metrics'), and the selection mechanism ('by passing a metric name prefix'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bulk tag deletion for metrics configuration, which is not covered by other delete operations like delete_metric_tags.
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: for bulk deletion of custom tag lists for metrics selected by name prefix, with results sent via email. It mentions the permission requirement ('Manage Tags for Metrics') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as delete_metric_tags for non-bulk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the permanence of the deletion ('permanently delete') and a specific error condition (409 conflict when referenced in dashboards). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to dependent data beyond dashboard references.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides critical error context. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (permanent deletion) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about permanence and a key error condition. However, it doesn't mention what 'specified' means (likely through URL path parameters) or what the successful response looks like, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral context rather than parameter details, which is correct for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('the specified service level objective object'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_slo_correction' by specifying it deletes SLO objects themselves, not related corrections.
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 about when NOT to use this tool (when the SLO is referenced in a dashboard, as it will cause a 409 conflict error). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'update_slo' or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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 and does so comprehensively. It reveals this is a paginated API with specific pagination logic (checking `next_record_id`), includes rate limiting guidance ('sleep(5 seconds)'), provides a pseudo-code example for proper usage, and discloses access restrictions (parent-level organizations only, not available in Government site). This goes well beyond basic functional description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by important constraints and implementation details. The pseudo-code example is valuable but makes the description longer than typical. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical operational information, though it could be slightly more concise in the pagination explanation.
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 complexity of a paginated API with specific access restrictions and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, constraints, pagination mechanics, rate limiting considerations, access requirements, and availability limitations. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this provides all necessary context for an agent to use 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description adds meaningful context about what the tool operates on (monthly cost attribution by tag) and implies temporal parameters through the availability constraint ('data for a given month becomes available no later than the 19th of the following month'). This provides semantic understanding beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get monthly cost attribution by tag across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the resource (cost attribution data), the grouping dimension (tag), and the scope (monthly, multi-org/single root-org). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_cost_by_tag_active_billing_dimensions' or 'get_usage_monthly_attributions', which appear to be related cost/usage tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides excellent usage guidance with explicit constraints: 'Cost Attribution data for a given month becomes available no later than the 19th of the following month,' 'This endpoint is only accessible for parent-level organizations,' and 'This endpoint is not available in the Government (US1-FED) site.' These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria that help the agent select this tool appropriately.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/ClaudioLazaro/mcp-datadog-server'

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