ComplianceCow MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

This repository includes a README.md file.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
Latest release: v0.1.0
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.
View server inspector
This server provides 100 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Report a security issue
Are you the author?
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description discloses no behavioral traits, return structure, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the single sentence adds no value beyond the function name and wastes the opportunity to front-load critical parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description inadequately explains the tool's domain (graph nodes vs. other resources) leaving critical gaps given the complex sibling ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for the 'question' parameter; description fails to explain what format the question takes (natural language, Cypher, ID) or provide examples.
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?
Tautological description restates the tool name without clarifying what 'unique node' means or distinguishing from 30+ sibling fetch 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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like fetch_resources, fetch_evidence_record_schema, or execute_cypher_query.
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 provided and description fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or whether this overwrites or appends to existing summaries.
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?
Brief but uses inappropriate docstring/Args format instead of front-loaded natural language; wastes opening on parameter listing rather than 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?
Fails to clarify relationship to sibling modify_workflow or explain what constitutes a workflow summary in this domain despite having output schema available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by specifying id source (/status/id from get_workflows) and summary format preference (ReadMe), though 'preferably ReadMe' is vague.
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?
Description lists parameters under 'Args:' without stating the core action (updating a workflow summary), forcing reliance on the tool name to infer 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?
Provides only a data provenance hint (fetch id from get_workflows) but lacks guidance on when to use this versus modify_workflow or create_workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, and contradicts likely behavior implied by tool name.
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?
Contains typo ('asse'), and the misleading opening sentence wastes space; standard Args/Returns structure is present but content quality is poor.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex domain (assets, controls, authority documents) and numerous sibling tools, fails to explain citation relationships or clarify the asset creation contradiction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section provides necessary basic semantics for all 3 parameters, though definitions are minimal and circular for assetControlId.
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?
Description states it 'creates a new asset' but tool name indicates it adds citations to existing controls; contradiction creates confusion about actual purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives like create_asset_and_check or how citation addition differs from other modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds no behavioral context about side effects, rate limits, or error conditions beyond the standard return value documentation.
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?
Extremely verbose due to exhaustive Returns section listing all output fields; redundant since output schema exists and not front-loaded with the most critical usage 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?
Includes workflow guidance (next tool to call) but suffers from resource ambiguity; unnecessarily duplicates structured output schema in text form.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by labeling the parameter as 'Control name', providing minimal but necessary semantic context absent from the JSON 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?
Claims to fetch 'controls' but returns 'Control run id', failing to distinguish from sibling 'fetch_controls' or clarify it searches control instances/executions rather than definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides confusing fallback condition ('when no result from execute_cypher_query') rather than logical use case, though it correctly identifies next tool ('fetch_run_control_meta_data') for additional metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits disclosed (e.g., what details are returned, caching, or side effects) beyond the implicit parameter requirement.
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?
Structurally flawed: formatted as an 'Args:' section without a main description body; though brief, the missing purpose statement makes it 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?
Despite having only one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete because it omits the core function, leaving the agent to infer purpose solely from the tool 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?
Compensates well for 0% schema coverage by clearly defining 'id' as 'workflow id' and specifying the exact JSONPath '/status/id' in 'get_workflows' output to source it.
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?
Description lacks a purpose statement entirely, only documenting the 'id' parameter without stating what 'fetching workflow details' entails or returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides minimal guidance on sourcing the ID from 'get_workflows', but fails to differentiate from siblings like 'get_workflow_by_name' or indicate when 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description only duplicates the output schema structure rather than disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, pagination, or filtering logic.
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?
Structured as docstring with Args/Returns sections, but wastefully duplicates information already present in input/output schemas.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fails to compensate for 0% schema coverage or explain what 'schedules' means in this domain (execution times? maintenance windows?), leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides basic circular description for assetId ('Asset ID whose schedules need to be listed') which is necessary given 0% schema description coverage, but lacks format guidance or domain 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?
Tautologically restates the tool name ('List schedules for a given asset') without distinguishing from siblings like delete_asset_schedule or schedule_asset_execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like schedule_asset_execution or delete_asset_schedule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description only provides one behavioral hint: that the ID must be sourced from 'get_workflows' output path /status/id; misses side effects, validation rules, or idempotency.
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?
Concise but poorly structured: lacks front-loaded purpose statement, diving immediately into 'Args:' without 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?
Incomplete for the workflow tool ecosystem; fails to clarify relationship to 'create_workflow' or 'modify_workflow', and omits expected Mermaid syntax/format constraints despite having output schema available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates partially for 0% schema coverage by explaining where to fetch the 'id' parameter, though 'mermaidDiagram' receives only tautological elaboration.
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?
Description lacks a purpose statement; it only lists argument definitions without stating that the tool updates or sets the workflow's Mermaid diagram.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'modify_workflow' or 'update_workflow_summary', or prerequisites for the diagram format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions prerequisites (applications must be published first) and naming options, but lacks disclosure of error behaviors, idempotency, side effects, or state changes beyond the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely verbose and repetitive with excessive capitalization and redundant warnings; the actual tool description is lost in procedural workflow documentation that belongs in system prompts rather than tool 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?
Attempts to address workflow complexity but inappropriately embeds multi-tool orchestration logic instead of focusing on this tool's specific contract and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, it provides minimal basic semantics ('Name of the rule to publish', 'Optional alternative name') but lacks constraints, format requirements, or examples for the 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?
States the tool publishes a rule to make it available, but this is buried under extensive workflow instructions for multiple other tools, obscuring the specific action of this single tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides 'WHEN TO USE' context within a larger workflow, but fails to explicitly compare against sibling tools like publish_application or clarify when to use this specific tool versus 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It misleadingly suggests the tool performs interactive user prompting ('prompt the user: yes/no'), which is atypical for stateless MCP tools and likely describes desired AI orchestration rather than actual tool behavior. It mentions returning a Dict but omits side effects, idempotency, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is bloated with workflow orchestration details (four bullet points of conditional user interaction) that likely describe how the AI should use the tool rather than what the tool does. These should be removed or moved to system prompts, as they clutter the actual tool specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description focuses excessively on workflow UI logic instead of explaining the return value structure or mutation semantics. For a tool that appears to perform writes (publishing), the lack of safety warnings or state change descriptions is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing 'rule_name: Name of the rule to check' which adequately documents the single required parameter. No additional semantic context (e.g., format constraints, case sensitivity) is provided, but baseline coverage is met.
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 it checks publication status, but conflates this with complex workflow orchestration (prompting users, conditional publishing). It distinguishes from 'publish_rule' by implying a check-then-publish pattern, but the mixing of tool function with UI workflow steps obscures the actual atomic 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?
Implies a specific workflow context (preparing for control attachment) but fails to explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'publish_rule' or 'check_rule_status'. The conditional logic described doesn't clarify when to prefer this over direct publishing.
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?
Documents return structure in detail (necessary since no annotations), but omits how 'recent' is defined, time windows, or failure modes beyond generic 'error'.
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?
Wastes space extensively documenting return fields when output schema exists; contains multiple typos ('Assessement'); burying the 'recent' qualifier.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic input/output contract but leaves critical 'recent' logic undefined and over-documents returns unnecessarily.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description only adds 'assessment id' label without format guidance, examples, 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?
States basic intent but creates confusion with singular 'assessment run' vs returned List, and fails to distinguish from sibling 'fetch_assessment_runs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus 'fetch_assessment_runs' or 'fetch_assessment_run_details', nor what 'recent' means.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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, description fails to explain critical behavioral logic: what criteria determines 'top' overdue controls (days overdue, priority, count?) and omits sorting/ranking 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?
Uses structured Args/Returns format but contains unnecessary repetition, typo ('donates' for 'denotes'), and redundant parenthetical '(over-due)' that adds no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Includes detailed return schema which satisfies output documentation, but lacks explanation of the ranking logic essential for a 'top N' query tool with simple 2-parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates partially for 0% schema coverage: 'period' explanation adds value (quarter format, dashboard context), but 'count' description is tautological ('accepts count as count').
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?
States it fetches overdue controls but has redundant phrasing 'over due (over-due)' and fails to distinguish from sibling 'get_top_non_compliant_controls_detail' or explain what 'top' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 vs alternatives like fetch_controls or get_top_non_compliant_controls_detail; only lists parameter inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; while it mentions error handling, the return descriptions are erroneous (all labeled 'Name of the asset'), obscuring actual output structure.
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?
Uses structured Args/Returns format, but wastes space with obvious copy-paste errors in return descriptions that create confusion rather than 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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with output schema, but erroneous documentation and lack of behavioral context leave 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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by specifying 'Assessment id' for the id parameter, clarifying input semantics.
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?
States basic function ('Get assets summary') but fails to distinguish from siblings like fetch_resources_summary or list_assets, and return value descriptions contain confusing copy-paste errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives such as fetch_assessments, fetch_checks_summary, or list_assets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions error handling behavior and return structure (List[RecordListVO]) which supplements the missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses structured Args/Returns sections but contains redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic input/output contract but lacks domain context about what an 'evidence record schema' represents or when it's needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining 'id' as 'Evidence ID', though this is minimal semantic enrichment.
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?
States the tool retrieves a schema but fails to differentiate from sibling 'fetch_evidence_records' which likely fetches actual data rather than schema metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus fetching records directly or other evidence-related 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?
Discloses crucial behavioral trait in Returns section: tool returns a 'prompt' string used to generate Cypher rather than actual control data, which is non-obvious from 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?
Structured format (Args/Returns) is good, but opening sentence is wasted space; overall length is appropriate but not optimally front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Describes the return value (helpful since output schema exists but isn't shown), but leaves major gaps regarding tool purpose differentiation and control domain 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?
Args section compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining control_name as 'name of the control', adding necessary semantics missing from structured 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?
Opens with tautology 'To fetch controls' that merely restates the tool name, failing to distinguish from siblings like fetch_leaf_controls_of_an_assessment or fetch_dashboard_framework_controls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this generic fetch_controls versus the 10+ specific control-fetching siblings available.
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?
Documents return structure and error field compensating for lack of annotations, but omits side effects, rate limits, or pagination 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?
Uses clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections; appropriately sized with front-loaded purpose 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?
Adequate for basic invocation given the simple schema, but lacks explanation of filter interaction logic (AND vs OR) and relationship to similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by listing parameters, but definitions are tautological (e.g., 'categoryId: assessment category 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?
States 'Get all assessments' but fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'fetch_assessments' which has nearly identical 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?
No guidance on when to use filters vs. retrieve all, or when to prefer this over 'fetch_assessments'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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, description carries full burden but only discloses return type; misses idempotency, side effects, or failure modes beyond 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Docstring format (Args/Returns) is well-structured and front-loaded; every line conveys necessary information without redundancy, though Returns section partially duplicates existing 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?
Incomplete regarding complex app_info parameter structure (accepts arbitrary additionalProperties); fails to specify required fields or format for application objects, leaving critical usage information undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by defining rule_name clearly, but app_info description ('List of application objects') is tautological and lacks crucial details about required object properties despite additionalProperties: true in 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?
States specific action (publish) and outcome (make available for rule execution) but fails to distinguish from siblings like prepare_applications_for_execution or publish_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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (prepare_applications_for_execution, publish_rule) or prerequisites for publishing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds no information about side effects, rate limits, or execution behavior beyond basic input 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?
Structured with Args/Returns sections, but contains typo in opening line and redundant Returns documentation given output schema exists.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool; detailed return value documentation is redundant given output schema exists but doesn't detract significantly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds semantic meaning ('Assessment id or plan id') but contradicts schema: description labels assessment_id as 'required' while schema marks it optional (default: '', required parameters: 0).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it fetches 'automated controls' (distinguishing from general fetch_controls sibling), though has typo 'the only the'.
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?
Provides fallback guidance if assessment_id is missing, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling control-fetching tools like fetch_leaf_controls_of_an_assessment.
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?
Explains the domain context (CCF summary data, status types) but lacks operational details like caching, rate limits, or side effects; no contradictions with annotations (none provided).
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?
Verbose with redundant 'Returns' section duplicating output schema; weak opening ('Function accepts...'); contains typos ('contorl'); key purpose buried in middle.
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?
Valuable mapping of business concepts to return fields (e.g., 'control category wise' maps to 'controlSummary') clarifies the output structure despite existing 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?
Compensates well for 0% schema coverage by clearly defining the 'period' parameter's format (Q1 2024) and semantic meaning (quarter of year).
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?
States it retrieves CCF dashboard summary data and mentions control categories/frameworks, but fails to clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'fetch_dashboard_framework_summary' or 'get_dashboard_common_controls_details'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage ('For any related to control category... use this function') but provides no guidance on when to use specific sibling dashboard tools instead, nor explicit 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?
Only documents return structure (which duplicates existing output schema) with no disclosure of error conditions, rate limits, or caching 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?
Brief and front-loaded, but includes redundant Returns documentation that belongs in output schema rather than description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a simple parameter-less tool, though domain context about review period usage would improve agent selection accuracy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero input parameters meets baseline expectation with no additional semantic clarification 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?
States specific action and resource ('Fetch list of review periods') but does not explain what review periods are or how they differ from other dashboard 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 on when to use this versus sibling dashboard tools like get_dashboard_data or fetch_dashboard_framework_summary.
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?
Documents return values (success boolean, optional error string) but omits critical behavioral details like whether deletion is permanent, idempotent, or has cascading effects on related assessments.
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?
Appropriately concise with structured Args/Returns format; every line conveys 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?
Adequate for a single-parameter delete operation but lacks important context regarding the asset/assessment terminology discrepancy and destructive implications of the 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?
Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by clearly defining scheduleId as 'ID of the schedule to delete', providing necessary semantic context missing from the raw 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?
States the delete action clearly but uses 'assessment schedule' terminology that conflicts with tool name 'asset_schedule' and sibling tool 'list_asset_schedules', creating ambiguity about the target resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives like schedule_asset_execution, or conditions under which deletion might fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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, description carries full burden but only discloses return structure (Dict with list), omitting read-only nature, caching, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Brief and front-loaded; Returns section is slightly redundant given output schema exists but does not significantly bloat the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for simple parameterless operation with output schema available, but lacks sibling differentiation context that would help select this over similar application-fetching 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?
Zero parameters present; meets baseline expectation with no additional parameter context 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?
Clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('applications'), with 'all available' distinguishing it from filtered siblings like get_applications_for_tag, though explicit differentiation from get_application_info is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus alternatives (get_application_info, check_applications_publish_status) or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Warns that output contains 'many controls' and may be large, but lacks other behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or side effects (annotations absent so description carries full burden).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded purpose is good, but contains typo ('contorls'), and the extensive Returns section is overly verbose for tool selection context (output schema already exists).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides parameter documentation where schema lacks it, but fails to resolve ambiguity with sibling tools or explain the pagination discrepancy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining the 'id' parameter refers to assessment run id, but confusingly references pagination ('use page') without corresponding parameter in 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?
States specific action (get details) and resource (assessment run), though could better differentiate from siblings like fetch_run_controls or fetch_assessment_run_leaf_controls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Advises storing large output to file, but fails to explain when to use this versus similar sibling tools or how to handle the mentioned pagination (no page parameter exists in schema).
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?
Documents return structure (evidence list or error) but lacks operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when ID is invalid; no annotations provided to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses structured Args/Returns format, but redundantly details return fields when an output schema exists; somewhat verbose for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter fetch operation but lacks domain context explaining what constitutes a 'leaf control' or how it relates to assessment hierarchies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by specifying 'Assessment run control id' for the id parameter, though it omits format details or how to obtain this ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves leaf control evidence for a specific assessment run control ID, distinguishing it from sibling fetch tools that retrieve controls or generic evidence records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like fetch_evidence_records, or prerequisites like obtaining the assessment run control ID first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses large output file storage behavior; no annotations provided to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Severely bloated by an extensive Returns section documenting the full output structure, which is redundant given an output schema exists and violates the 'every sentence earns its place' principle.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the single input parameter adequately and mentions large-output handling, but over-documenting return values wastes space that could have explained 'leaf controls' or sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by specifying the id parameter represents an 'Assessment run 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?
States it retrieves 'leaf controls' for an assessment run ID, but fails to explain what 'leaf controls' means or distinguish from siblings like fetch_leaf_controls_of_an_assessment, fetch_run_controls, and fetch_controls.
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?
Provides specific guidance for large outputs ('store it in a file'), but lacks guidance on when to use this versus the many similar control-fetching 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?
Describes return value structure (Dict with metadata) but lacks information on error handling, caching, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses efficient docstring format (Args/Returns) with no redundancy, though brevity sacrifices important contextual 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?
Sufficient for basic invocation given simple single-parameter schema, but incomplete regarding tool's relationship to other rule-related 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?
Provides clear semantic meaning for rule_name parameter, effectively compensating for 0% schema description coverage.
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?
States basic action (fetch rule by name) but fails to distinguish from similar siblings like fetch_cc_rule_by_name or fetch_workflow_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 versus alternative rule-fetching tools or what constitutes a valid rule 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?
Ambiguous whether the tool automatically performs output analysis and workflow completion enforcement, or if these are instructions for the agent; conflates tool behavior with agent responsibilities.
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?
Extremely verbose with redundant ALL CAPS sections that mix tool capabilities with agent instructions; significant bloat obscures 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?
Attempts to cover output handling and workflow implications given the output schema, but overreaches into prescriptive agent behavior rather than describing tool capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Baseline score for zero parameters; description does not contradict the empty schema but implies filtering by 'user's request' which could cause 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?
Clearly identifies the tool as providing minimal task information for initial discovery and distinguishes it from detailed retrieval via the tasks://details endpoint.
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?
Specifies use for initial selection and as a fallback when fetch_tasks_suggestions is disabled, but the extensive workflow enforcement sections blur the line between tool usage and agent post-processing 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?
Adds critical behavioral detail about 'exact, case-sensitive match' not present in schema, but omits what happens when workflow doesn't exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Appropriately brief and front-loaded; Args section is slightly informal but efficient given schema lacks descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with output schema, but missing sibling differentiation and error behavior that would make it 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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining the 'name' parameter as 'workflow name to search', adding necessary semantic 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?
States it retrieves workflow configuration by name with exact matching, but doesn't differentiate from sibling 'fetch_workflow_details' or clarify what 'configuration' 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?
Lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs 'list_workflows' (when exact name unknown) or error handling if workflow not found.
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?
Details return structure including error field, but lacks info on failure modes, side effects, or rate limits given 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Opens with tautological sentences ('List... This tool retrieves...'), and includes verbose Returns section duplicating structured output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool but lacks cross-references to sibling tools like create_control_note or fetch_controls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema coverage by clearly describing controlId as 'The control ID to list notes 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?
States specific verb (list/retrieves) and resource (notes for a control), though opening sentences are redundant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus alternatives like create_control_note or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return value structure (Dict with rule metadata) but lacks disclosure on auth, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses structured Args/Returns format appropriately; concise without extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a single-parameter tool with output schema, but misses opportunity to clarify 'cc_rule' namespace versus generic 'rule' siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing basic semantics for rule_id, though definition is tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (fetch) and resource (rule details by ID from compliancecow), though doesn't clarify distinction from sibling 'fetch_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 like 'fetch_cc_rule_by_name' or 'fetch_rule'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the return value is a Dict with 'complete rule structure and metadata', but provides no information on error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits given 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses standard docstring format (Args/Returns) with front-loaded purpose statement; appropriately terse though the Returns description is somewhat vague ('complete rule 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?
Sufficient for the low complexity (single string parameter) and given existence of output schema, but incomplete due to missing sibling differentiation and lack of parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds minimal semantic meaning ('Rule name of the rule to retrieve') beyond the 0% schema coverage, though it fails to specify format constraints, case sensitivity, or examples for the rule_name 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?
Clearly states it fetches rule details by name from ComplianceCow, distinguishing from fetch_cc_rule_by_id via the 'by rule name' specification, though it doesn't clarify relationship to the generic fetch_rule sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_cc_rule_by_id or fetch_cc_rules_list, leaving selection to inference 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 behavioral traits disclosed beyond return structure documentation (redundant with existing output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections; front-loaded purpose statement; Returns documentation justified given lack of schema descriptions.
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?
Adequately complete for a single-parameter tool, covering input semantics and return structure despite missing 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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by clarifying assetId is 'Asset id (plan id)'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('checks'), implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'fetch_checks' by specifying association with an asset via assetId.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'fetch_checks' or 'fetch_checks_summary'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "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, description only mentions basic error handling ('Error message if retrieval fails') but lacks info on pagination, caching, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded and appropriately brief, though the Returns section formatting with colons is slightly awkward.
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?
Adequate for a zero-parameter list operation; mentions return structure despite existence of 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?
Input schema has zero parameters; per rubric baseline is 4 for this case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb-resource combination ('Retrieve... workflow configurations') but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like fetch_workflow_details or get_workflow_by_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus specific-fetch alternatives (get_workflow_by_name, fetch_workflow_details) or filtering capabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes what the summary contains (compliance breakdown) and that paginated data suffices, but lacks details on rate limits, caching, or side effects (no annotations provided to contradict).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Redundant opening ('Use this to get...' followed by 'Get...'), but uses structured Args/Returns sections; bullet points for compliance breakdown are effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately describes return values despite output schema existing, but incomplete due to missing `check` parameter documentation and no mention of error handling beyond Returns section.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description only compensates for 2 of 3 parameters (missing `check` parameter documentation in Args section).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (get summary) and resource (check resources), and distinguishes from sibling `fetch_resources_for_check` by specifying use case for high item counts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('when total items in fetch_resources_for_check is high') and implies when not to use (when you need full details vs summary).
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?
Excellent disclosure of conditional behavior when task not found (prompt user, wait, optionally create support ticket) which compensates for missing annotations.
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?
Severely bloated with generic, seemingly copy-pasted sections (Intention-Based Output Chaining, Workflow Gap Detection) that apply to many tools, burying the specific retrieval logic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Acknowledges output schema existence and mentions template/appTag metadata, but cluttered with irrelevant workflow guidance that distracts from the tool's actual 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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by defining task_name as 'The name of the task for which to retrieve details' in the Args section.
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?
States it retrieves task details but buries the core purpose under verbose workflow instructions; opening line is tautological ('Tool-based version of get_task_details').
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?
Provides explicit alternative comparison ('if the tasks://details/{task_name} resource is not accessible') but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like fetch_task_readme or execute_task.
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, description effectively discloses return structure including nested fields (UserVO, emailid) and 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?
Uses redundant headers ('Function overview:') but maintains readable structure with clear Arguments/Returns sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate given output schema exists, but gaps remain: 'count' parameter unexplained and no differentiation from numerous sibling control-fetching tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining 'period' (quarters) and 'page' (pagination logic), but completely omits semantics for 'count' 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?
States specific action (Fetch) and resource (controls with low/non-compliant scores), though could better differentiate from sibling 'get_top_over_due_controls_detail'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only a pagination hint ('smartly decide the page') but lacks when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternative control-fetching 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?
Discloses return value ('List of available activity types') which compensates for missing annotations, but lacks information on side effects, caching, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, bulleted enumeration of types, and explicit Returns section; each sentence adds value 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?
Adequate for a simple listing tool with existing output schema, but could better contextualize how activity types relate to the broader workflow creation process suggested by 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?
Input schema has zero parameters, meeting the baseline for this dimension; description correctly implies no configuration needed to retrieve the activity type catalog.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Get available workflow activity types') and enumerates three specific categories (Function, Rule, Task) which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling list_workflow_* tools, though explicit differentiation would strengthen it further.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus sibling tools like list_workflow_functions, list_workflow_rules, or list_workflow_tasks, nor when to call this during workflow creation.
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?
Provides conceptual context about rule behavior (data processing, validation, mappable I/O) but lacks operational details like caching, performance, or side effects given 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?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose; Returns section is detailed but necessary given lack of structured output schema elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately explains the rule abstraction but omits usage patterns (e.g., pairing with attach_rule_to_control) and pagination/filtering considerations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero-parameter tool with complete schema coverage; meets baseline expectation with no 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?
States specific retrieval action and explains domain concept (rules as predefined logic), though lacks explicit differentiation from fetch_workflow_rule sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus fetch_workflow_rule or attach_rule_to_control, nor when-not 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?
Provides useful behavioral context not in annotations: default value (8000), token approximation (2000), and return structure (Dictionary with content or error), but lacks safety info (read-only, encoding, exceptions).
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?
Well-structured with Args/Returns sections; front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter details; no redundant text though Returns section could be omitted given output schema exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple read operation but missing critical operational details like encoding assumptions, handling of missing files (exception vs error dict), and maximum file size limits before truncation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by clarifying uri accepts both file:// and path formats, and explaining max_chars purpose with helpful token context for LLM 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?
Clear specific action ('Read content') and resource ('local file'), with 'local' distinguishing it from siblings like read_resource and fetch_output_file that handle remote/cloud 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 on when to use this versus read_resource or fetch_output_file, and no mention of file size limits or binary vs text handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the creation behavior and return structure (success boolean, error message), but lacks critical details about error conditions, idempotency, or atomicity since no annotations are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections; every sentence conveys necessary 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?
Covers basic inputs and outputs, but gaps remain regarding valid ID formats, constraint validation, and error scenarios given the tool's operational 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?
Provides essential semantic meaning for all 4 parameters (e.g., clarifying parentControlId is the parent under which the check is added), compensating effectively for 0% schema description 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?
States specific action (add control and check) and target resource (asset under parent control), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'create_asset_and_check' which likely creates the asset 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_asset_and_check' or prerequisites for the asset/parent control existing.
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?
Adds critical input structure format and return value semantics (boolean 'published' field) beyond empty annotations, but lacks info on errors 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Uses Args/Returns structure effectively, but redundant between opening sentence and Args description; could be more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for tool complexity: covers the undocumented parameter structure and return shape, though domain context (what publishing means) is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Essential: schema has 0% description coverage and only says 'array of objects'; description provides exact required structure with example '[{"name":["ACTUAL application_class_name"]}]'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it checks publication status for applications, distinguishing from sibling 'check_rule_publish_status', though it doesn't define what 'published' means in this 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus fetching applications directly, or when to use 'publish_application' instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adequately explains the read-only nature (fetching actions) and includes error handling in the Returns section. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, rate limits, or why user confirmation is needed before execution.
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?
Well-organized with clear sections for Args and Returns. The 3-step workflow is front-loaded and actionable. The Returns section is verbose (listing nested object fields) but structured. Could be more concise by removing the tautological 'This tool should be used...' opening.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence 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 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but has significant gaps (missing parameter, wrong required status). The detailed Returns section is helpful but redundant since an output schema exists. The workflow guidance adds valuable context that compensates somewhat for the schema deficiencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. While it documents 3 parameters (assessmentName, controlNumber, controlAlias), it completely omits the 4th parameter (evidenceName). Critically, it contradicts the schema by marking controlNumber and controlAlias as 'required' when the schema shows they have default values and only assessmentName is 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 opens with confusing phrasing ('handling control-related actions such as create, update') that implies the tool executes mutations, when it actually only retrieves available actions. While the workflow section later clarifies this is a fetch operation, the initial ambiguity could mislead agents. It does distinguish from siblings like `fetch_controls` and `execute_action`.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance: names `fetch_controls` as the alternative when control details are missing, and clearly maps the 3-step workflow (fetch → confirm → execute via `execute_action`). Also specifies fallback actions when required arguments are unavailable.
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?
Documents return structure and error field, but lacks behavioral details like caching, idempotency, or failure modes beyond the generic error string.
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?
Well-structured with bullet points and clear Args/Returns sections, though the Returns section somewhat repeats the introductory bullet points.
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?
Adequately complete for a simple fetch operation: covers input, purpose, and return values (acting as output schema 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?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by explicitly documenting the 'id' parameter as 'Control id', providing necessary 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?
Clearly states it retrieves control metadata linked to assessment and assessment run details, though doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'fetch_controls' siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like fetch_controls or fetch_assessment_run_details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format and one valid value (USER_BLOCK), but lacks comprehensive enum list, error behaviors, or side effects given no annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Minor redundancy between opening and 'This function retrieves...' sentences; otherwise well-structured with Args/Returns sections.
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?
Adequate for low complexity (1 param, no nesting); covers workflow context and return types without duplicating existing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing example value USER_BLOCK, but offers only single example without full enumeration or detailed 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?
Clear verb (Fetch) and resource (workflow resource data), distinguishes from siblings by specifying use for 'dynamic data' in 'workflow nodes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context (inputs for workflow nodes) but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance relative to siblings like fetch_resources or read_resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden; it clarifies that a single rule is returned (despite List type) and mentions error handling, but lacks details on not-found behavior or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with Args/Returns sections and front-loaded purpose, though the Returns section is verbose given that an output schema exists (which may contain this structural detail).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and existing output schema, the description is complete, covering both input semantics and return structure, though it could clarify the 'single match' guarantee (e.g., what happens with duplicates).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adequately compensates by explaining that the 'name' parameter refers to the workflow rule to retrieve, though it could specify format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a workflow rule by name and distinguishes it somewhat from siblings by mentioning input/output specifications, though it could better differentiate from `fetch_rule` or `get_workflow_by_name`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_workflow_rules` or `fetch_rule`, or 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Documents error return possibility but lacks other behavioral traits (rate limits, caching, permissions) given no annotations provided.
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?
Brief and front-loaded; Returns section is structured though somewhat redundant with implied output schema.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation with no inputs; details return structure sufficiently despite presence of 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?
Zero parameters present, meeting baseline expectation; no parameter-related content 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?
Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('assessment categories'), though lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list tools like list_workflow_event_categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus alternatives (e.g., list_assessments) or when-not-to-use constraints.
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?
Documents return value structure (success, assets list with id/name fields, error) which compensates for missing annotations, but omits side effects, caching behavior, or cost considerations.
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?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded and Returns section clearly delineated, though return value details may duplicate existing output schema.
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?
Adequately complete for a zero-parameter list operation; describes return values sufficiently given the tool's limited 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?
Input schema has zero parameters, warranting the baseline score; no parameter semantics needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves all available assets and helpfully clarifies via parenthetical that 'assets' refers to 'integration plans', though it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'fetch_assets_summary'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'fetch_assets_summary' or when retrieval might be unnecessary.
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?
Clarifies it works on 'existing' files (implying pre-existence requirement) and describes return type, but omits edge cases (e.g., behavior if rule doesn't exist) and idempotency 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?
Contains redundant opening sentences ('Update existing...' repeated in header and body) though Args/Returns structure improves scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basic operation and return value for this simple two-parameter tool, but lacks error handling documentation or preconditions (e.g., rule must exist).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing clear inline definitions for both rule_name and updated_readme_content 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?
States specific action (update) and resource (README.md file), with implicit distinction from sibling create_rule_readme via 'after initial creation' phrase.
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?
Provides implied context ('after initial creation') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to create_rule_readme alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses conditional behavior (fetches rule info only if ruleId exists) but lacks details on error handling, what 'basic rule information' entails, or side effects given no annotations 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?
Appropriately concise with clear Args/Returns structure; front-loaded with main purpose before parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Sufficient for a single-parameter tool; acknowledges output schema exists by providing high-level return description rather than detailed field enumeration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining control_id as 'The ID of the control to verify', clarifying the parameter'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?
States specific purpose (verify automation status via ruleId presence) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status verification rather than rule management or attachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus alternatives like fetch_cc_rule_by_id or attach_rule_to_control; lacks explicit when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the hierarchical structure created (asset->parentcontrol->control->check) beyond schema, but lacks operational details (idempotency, failure modes, side effects) given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured Args/Returns format is readable but contains typo ('asse') and could front-load key constraints more prominently.
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?
Adequately documents all parameters and return values given zero schema descriptions, though missing edge case handling (e.g., duplicate asset names).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema coverage by defining all 4 parameters inline, including critical constraint on checkName (letters/numbers only, no spaces) not present in 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?
Clear action (create asset with control/check hierarchy) and distinguishes from siblings by implying atomic creation of full structure, though typo 'asse' and lack of explicit differentiation slightly reduces 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 on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., add_check_to_asset) or preconditions (e.g., asset must not exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses client-side pagination behavior and clarifies the API retrieves detailed rather than summary data, adding context beyond the null annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections, but overly verbose in documenting return values (controls list, page, totalPage, etc.) that should be delegated to the existing output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for simple 2-parameter tool but incomplete due to the parameter name mismatch and redundant return value documentation despite presence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Critical mismatch: description references 'review_period' but schema expects 'period'; while semantic descriptions are provided for both parameters, the naming discrepancy could cause invocation failures with 0% 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?
Clearly states it retrieves detailed control-level data (not aggregated) for a specific CCF and review period, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling aggregation tool (fetch_dashboard_framework_summary).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (for detailed item-level data) and when not to use (does not return aggregated overview), but lacks specific alternative tool recommendations.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It compensates well by detailing the return structure (List[AutomatedControlVO] with specific fields) and mentioning error handling. However, it lacks disclosure about pagination, rate limits, side effects, or what constitutes a 'leaf' control versus parent controls.
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 docstring format with Args and Returns sections is well-structured and front-loaded. The Returns section provides valuable field-level detail that compensates for the missing output schema. Every sentence earns its place, though the typo 'the only the' in the first sentence slightly detracts from professionalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the complete absence of annotations and output schema, plus 0% parameter coverage, the description provides adequate context through detailed return value documentation. However, it remains incomplete regarding domain terminology (defining 'leaf controls') and operational constraints (pagination, filtering behavior, maximum result limits).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by specifying the parameter type (str), labeling it as required, and clarifying semantics ('Assessment id or plan id'). The note that a 'plan id' is also acceptable adds significant value beyond the raw schema. Note: There's a minor inconsistency where the description marks it required but the schema provides a default empty string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value 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 (fetch) and resource (leaf controls) with scope (for a given assessment). It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_controls' by specifying 'leaf controls'. However, it contains a typo ('the only the'), lacks explanation of what 'leaf controls' means in the domain hierarchy, and doesn't clarify how this differs from 'fetch_automated_controls_of_an_assessment'.
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 prerequisite guidance ('If assessment_id is not provided use other tools'), which helps with invocation sequencing. However, it fails to specify when to use this tool versus similar siblings like 'fetch_automated_controls_of_an_assessment' or 'fetch_assessment_run_leaf_controls', or what makes 'leaf' controls distinct from other control types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return structure (complianceSummary dict, error string) and summary contents, but lacks disclosure of side effects, rate limits, or caching behavior given no annotations 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?
Contains redundancy between opening lines ('Use this to get...' vs 'Fetch a summary...'), fragmented sentences, and inconsistent indentation that reduces clarity.
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?
Adequately covers the simple 2-parameter input and output structure for a summary tool, including specific breakdown of what the compliance summary contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Partially compensates for 0% schema coverage by clarifying 'id' is asset run ID, though 'resourceType' description is tautological and unhelpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (fetch summary) and resource (resources), and explicitly differentiates from sibling 'fetch_resources' by mentioning when to use it (high item counts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit conditional guidance ('Use this when total items in fetch_resources is high') indicating when to prefer this over the sibling fetch_resources tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses error behavior ('Error message if retrieval fails') but lacks other behavioral details like idempotency or caching (no annotations provided to contradict).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with Args/Returns sections, but Returns section is redundant given output schema exists; could be more concise.
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?
Adequate for simple single-parameter tool; covers parameter semantics and purpose, though explicit sibling differentiation would strengthen it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by specifying 'exact name' constraint, indicating precise matching 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?
Clear verb+resource ('Retrieve README documentation for a specific task'), distinguishes from siblings like fetch_rule_readme (task vs rule) and get_task_details (README vs metadata).
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?
States use case ('useful for understanding how to properly use a task') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like get_task_details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behavioral trait that it returns 'only id and name' for each control (field minimization) and preserves hierarchy, which is vital given no annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded purpose is good, but includes redundant Returns section despite existing output schema, and has formatting error (cutoff parenthesis in 'Nested child controls (').
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?
Sufficient for a single-parameter read operation; explains the id/name limitation adequately without needing to detail return structure since output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, description minimally compensates with tautological 'Asset id' definition lacking format, source, or example guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific purpose ('Retrieve the complete control hierarchy') with explicit distinction from flat control-fetching siblings via 'nested plan controls' and 'hierarchical structure'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select 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 versus siblings like fetch_controls, fetch_leaf_controls_of_an_assessment, or fetch_dashboard_framework_controls.
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 adequately explains the task concept and mentions error handling in returns, but omits technical behaviors like caching, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, but the detailed Returns section duplicates information that should reside in the output schema, making it slightly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage of return values including nested object structures, adequately compensating for lack of visible output schema details in the provided 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?
Input schema has zero parameters, meeting the baseline requirement; no parameter explanation needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves workflow tasks and distinguishes them from other workflow components by explaining they are predefined operations for nodes handling integrations and notifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains what workflow tasks are used for (external integrations, notifications) but lacks guidance on when to use this listing tool versus siblings like get_task_details or fetch_task_details.
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 documents the return structure comprehensively (including nested suggestion fields and similarity scores) but fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or error behaviors beyond basic failure indication.
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 structured with clear sections (summary, workflow, args, returns) but contains redundancy between the WORKFLOW and Args sections. The detailed return documentation is justified given the complex nested output structure, though the overall length borders on verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining parameter semantics and provides detailed return structure documentation. However, the parameter contradictions and lack of behavioral safety disclosures leave gaps in the complete picture needed for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the Args section adds semantic meaning for the three schema parameters (particularly explaining controlId's conditional usage), it contains critical contradictions: it marks 'description' as optional when the schema requires it, and lists 'assessmentId' as a parameter that does not exist in the provided schema. This creates confusion about actual 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 first sentence clearly states the tool suggests control citations based on names/descriptions. The workflow section further clarifies this is for mapping requirements to controls within assessments, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_citation_to_asset_control' which performs attachment rather than suggestion.
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 WORKFLOW section provides explicit step-by-step guidance: asking for assessment selection, resolving assessmentId, offering two control options (existing vs new), and handling controlId resolution accordingly. This clearly establishes prerequisites and decision points for using the tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses error handling behavior ('Error message if retrieval fails or README not available') but omits other traits like caching, rate limits, or auth requirements since no annotations are provided.
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?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose statement and clear Args/Returns sections; slightly verbose but every sentence adds value beyond the structured fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately complete for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter; the Returns section documents output despite the presence of an output schema, ensuring clarity without redundancy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by specifying the 'name' parameter requires the 'exact name' of the rule, adding crucial semantic constraints not present in the bare 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?
Clearly states it retrieves README documentation for a rule by name, distinguishing it from siblings like `fetch_rule` (which gets the rule itself) and `fetch_task_readme` (which targets tasks).
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?
Provides context ('useful for understanding how to properly use a rule') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings like `create_rule_readme`, `update_rule_readme`, or `generate_rule_readme_preview`.
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, description carries full burden; it discloses return structure and error handling but omits other behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose first, though the detailed Returns block is somewhat verbose for a description field given that output schema exists separately.
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?
Adequately complete for a simple listing tool; covers purpose, utility, and return values despite existence of separate 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?
Input schema has 0 parameters, meeting baseline of 4; description appropriately requires no 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?
States specific action (Retrieve) and resource (workflow condition categories), and distinguishes from sibling 'list_workflow_conditions' by explaining categories organize decision points by type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage context ('useful for filtering and selecting appropriate conditions when building workflows') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like list_workflow_conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return structure including eventCategories list and error handling, but omits rate limits, auth requirements, or caching 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?
Well-organized with clear sections, though the Returns documentation duplicates information likely present in the output schema.
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?
Adequately explains the domain concept of event categories and their utility for a simple retrieval 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?
Input schema contains no parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves workflow event categories and explains they organize triggers by type, implicitly distinguishing from sibling `list_workflow_events`.
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?
Provides context on using categories for filtering events when building workflows, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative comparisons.
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?
Documents error handling in returns, but as no annotations exist, could disclose read-only nature, caching, or rate limiting 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?
Well-structured with clear purpose statement upfront followed by utility explanation and documented return schema; no wasted sentences.
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?
Thorough for a zero-parameter list operation; explains what categories represent and documents return structure including error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (baseline 4); description appropriately focuses on behavior and return values rather than inventing 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?
Clearly states it retrieves workflow function categories and explains they organize activities by type, though doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list_workflow_functions.
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?
Provides context that it's useful for filtering/selecting functions when building workflows, but lacks explicit alternatives 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?
Describes the compliance breakdown structure returned, but lacks operational details like rate limits or caching 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?
Opening sentence is vague and redundant with second sentence; Args/Returns structure is useful but formatting is inconsistent.
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?
Thoroughly details the compliance summary breakdown (total/compliant/non-compliant) despite existence of 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?
Adds essential meanings ('Asset run id', 'Resource type') to compensate for 0% schema description 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?
States it retrieves a summary of checks and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'fetch_checks' by noting it's for high-volume scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('when total items in fetch_checks is high') implying the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical pagination behavior (max 50 records returned with full count in summary) and error handling that would typically appear in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with Args/Returns sections but unnecessarily verbose in documenting return values since an output schema exists.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of inputs and behavioral limits despite lack of annotations, though usage context against siblings is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining parameter purposes (Evidence ID) and enumerating valid filter values for compliantStatus.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves evidence records by ID with optional filtering, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling evidence tools like fetch_evidence_record_schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_evidence_available_actions or fetch_evidence_record_schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It documents the conversational workflow behavior thoroughly (presentation format, user confirmation requirements) but fails to explicitly declare safety properties (read-only vs destructive) or side effects. The Args/Returns section clarifies return structure somewhat.
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?
Extremely verbose (multi-step workflow document rather than tool description). The content is valuable but misplaced—workflow orchestration instructions belong in system prompts, not tool descriptions. Structure mixes narrative workflow with technical Args/Returns sections, creating cognitive load for the agent selecting 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?
Attempts completeness by covering workflow, parameters, and return values, but conflates agent conversation flow with tool capability description. Given the complexity (orchestrating multiple sibling tools) and lack of annotations, it needs the detail provided, though better structured as 'Retrieves design notes; returns dict with content or null if absent' rather than a workflow script.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'rule_name' parameter. The description compensates by documenting it as 'Name of the rule' in the Args section. While basic, this is sufficient for a single required string parameter when no schema descriptions 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 opening line states 'Fetch and manage design notes for a rule,' which identifies the resource (design notes) and action (fetch). While 'manage' is slightly misleading since the tool delegates creation to siblings (create_design_notes), the detailed workflow clarifies that this tool primarily retrieves and presents existing notes.
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?
Provides extensive explicit workflow guidance including step-by-step instructions (CHECK EXISTING NOTES → IF NOTES EXIST → USER OPTIONS). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming create_design_notes() and generate_design_notes_preview() as alternatives for updates and regeneration, and states 'Always check for existing notes first whenever user asks about design notes.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behavioral filter ('Only active conditions are returned') and explains evaluation mechanism (CEL expressions/functions), compensating for missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear opening, but the extensive Returns section documenting output fields is verbose given that an output schema exists.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of return structure and domain context (active-only filter, CEL expressions) compensates adequately for lack of 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?
Input schema has zero parameters, meeting baseline expectation; no parameter semantics 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?
Clear verb+resource ('Retrieve available workflow conditions') and explains domain concept (decision points using CEL expressions), though doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_workflow_condition_categories.
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?
Explains what conditions are used for (branching decisions), providing implied usage context, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternative workflow list 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?
Discloses critical behavioral trait that only active functions are returned, and details return structure comprehensively since no annotations exist
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured but verbose due to extensive Returns documentation that may duplicate existing output schema
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?
Comprehensive coverage of purpose, filtering behavior, and return values despite existing 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?
No parameters exist, meeting baseline requirement
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific purpose with verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'workflow functions', distinguishes from siblings like list_workflows by defining functions as core actions for nodes
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?
Provides implied usage context by explaining functions are for workflow nodes, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance versus similar tools like list_workflow_activity_types
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?
Explains the critical behavioral trait that setting these variables automatically triggers associated system operations, adding context beyond the retrieval action 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?
Front-loaded with purpose but includes verbose Returns section documenting the output schema that likely duplicates structured output schema data; examples are helpful but description could be tighter.
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?
Adequately covers the simple retrieval operation by explaining what predefined variables are, their function, and return structure, providing necessary context given lack of 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?
Input schema has zero parameters; description correctly implies no inputs are needed without explicitly stating it, meeting baseline expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves predefined variables for workflow configuration and defines what they are (system-level variables mapped to operations), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list_workflow_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides concrete examples of what the variables do (sending failure notifications) but lacks explicit guidance on when to call this vs other workflow listing tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden well by explaining the interactive workflow requiring user confirmation before execution, though it omits explicit read-only or idempotency statements.
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?
Well-structured with purpose first, then workflow, but includes a verbose Returns section that likely duplicates the output schema; front-loaded value is decent but could trim the returns documentation.
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 input complexity (4 flat string parameters) and existence of output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow context and relationship to execute_action, though it could clarify what distinguishes evidence-level from control-level actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides only tautological descriptions (e.g., 'assessment_name: assessment name') without explaining relationships between parameters or how to obtain valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves actions available for specific evidence, distinguishing from sibling tools like fetch_assessment_available_actions by specifying the evidence 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly describes the multi-step workflow (fetch → user confirmation → use execute_action) and references the sibling execute_action tool as the alternative for execution.
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?
Provides workflow context and validation rules (Base64 encoding), but missing standard behavioral disclosures like read-only nature, error conditions, or rate limits since no annotations 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?
Lengthy but justified by necessary workflow context; well-structured with clear headers (APPLICATION CREDENTIAL CONFIGURATION WORKFLOW, DATA VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS, Args, Returns).
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?
Complete given output schema exists; workflow integration details provide necessary context for proper invocation sequence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Effectively compensates for 0% schema coverage by defining `tag_name` as 'The app tag name for retrieving application information' in the Args section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb (Get) and resource (application info/credential types), though doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling `get_applications_for_tag` which likely lists rather than details.
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?
Excellent 7-step workflow showing exactly when to invoke this tool in the credential configuration process, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' vs 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?
Discloses default values, approximate token limits (2000), and return structure (dictionary with content or error) since no annotations 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?
Uses clear docstring format with Args/Returns sections; front-loads the primary use case (local files) but could clarify sibling distinction.
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?
Adequately covers the simple 2-parameter read operation including return value structure despite missing output schema details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by documenting both 'uri' and 'max_chars' parameters with types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (read content) and target (resource URI, primarily local files), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'read_file'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_file' or other fetch/get 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?
Discloses critical two-phase execution behavior (confirm flag) and safety constraints (user-provided inputs only), compensating well for missing 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?
Uses clear Args/Returns structure with front-loaded purpose; the IMPORTANT warning about inputs is verbose but safety-critical and justified.
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?
Adequately covers the tool's complexity (workflow triggering with validation) including the preview/execution dichotomy and input sourcing 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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by documenting all 4 parameters, though workflowConfigId definition is tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it triggers a workflow by config ID, distinguishing it from sibling management tools like create_workflow or fetch_workflow_details, though 'trigger' is slightly generic compared to 'execute'.
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?
Provides guidance on the confirm parameter (preview vs execute) and input sourcing requirements, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus similar execution tools like execute_task.
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?
Excellent disclosure of complex internal logic: explicitly states it ignores stored status fields, lists exact spec fields analyzed, reveals state machine transitions (DRAFT→ACTIVE), and explains the progress calculation methodology.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, but suffers from marketing-style verbosity ('ENHANCED WITH', 'Perfect for') and repetitive section headers that could be condensed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Thoroughly explains the auto-inference complexity and output structure given the simple input schema; appropriately delegates detailed return value documentation to the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by providing clear semantic meaning for rule_name parameter ('Name of the rule to check status for'), though lacks format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it performs auto-inference analysis of rule completion status vs stored metadata, and distinguishes itself from simple fetch operations by emphasizing the 'auto-detect' logic and resumption use case.
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?
Provides specific use case ('resuming in new chat windows') but lacks explicit comparison to siblings like fetch_rule or check_rule_publish_status regarding when to prefer stored vs inferred status.
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?
Excellent disclosure of side effects: automatic rule updates (fetching structure, updating spec.inputs and spec.inputsMeta__, calling create_rule()), status transitions, FILE vs non-FILE handling, and UI display requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear headers but excessively verbose; repetitive 'Enhanced' and 'NEW' annotations bloat the text without adding semantic value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage of complex automatic rule update process and UI requirements; brief return value summary is acceptable despite presence of 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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema coverage by providing detailed Args section with constraints (e.g., rule_input_name must match rule structure values, rule_name consistency requirement) and examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it confirms and processes template input after validation, distinguishing it from parameter confirmation via 'template' specificity, though explicit contrast with confirm_parameter_input is absent.
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?
Identifies it as a 'MANDATORY step' and notes skipping conditions (user accepts suggested template), but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance versus sibling tools like confirm_parameter_input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses timeout behavior, large response handling requirements, and default pagination values (page=1) not present in annotations or schema.
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?
Front-loaded purpose is good, but excessively verbose Returns section lists 15 individual fields which is redundant given the output schema exists; some grammatical awkwardness ('when expected run is got').
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?
Comprehensive coverage including error handling mentions, pagination defaults, and timeout scenarios appropriate for the tool's 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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by explaining all three parameters (id, page, pageSize) and their interaction in the description text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves all assessment runs for a given assessment ID and distinguishes from sibling tool 'fetch_recent_assessment_runs' by specifying 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides pagination strategy (page/pageSize), timeout retry logic (increase pageSize from 5 to 10), and when to use versus the recent runs alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral limits (returns only basic info, excludes full control hierarchy, optional filtering).
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?
Well-structured with clear sections (TOOL PURPOSE, Args, Returns); front-loaded summary; Returns section verbosity is justified by absence of output schema.
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?
Complete for a simple fetch tool: covers purpose, parameters, and return structure (compensating for missing output schema), though could clarify distinction from `list_assessments`.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by defining each parameter, but only restates parameter names as descriptions without explaining filtering logic or parameter relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific purpose (fetch assessments) with sibling differentiation via the 'basic info without full control hierarchy' detail and specific mention of use for confirming names during rule attachment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context (confirming assessment names when attaching rules to controls) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparison to sibling `list_assessments`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pagination behavior (page/totalPage), error handling patterns, and dashboard content details (risk scoring, due dates) that go beyond the empty annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear headers, but unnecessarily verbose due to the detailed Returns section which duplicates information already present in the output schema.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of the tool's functionality and data contents given the simple 2-parameter input schema; adequately complete despite not addressing similar dashboard tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantic meaning for both parameters, including the period format example ('Q1 2024') and framework identification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves a summary dashboard for a CCF and compliance period with specific use cases (tracking, reporting, audits), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like fetch_dashboard_framework_controls.
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?
Provides context on when it's useful (compliance tracking, audits) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to use instead for detailed vs. summary data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully explains the multi-step workflow (fetch → confirm → execute) and mentions error handling in returns. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, or what constitutes valid vs invalid action types beyond the enum values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Structured with Args and Returns sections, but verbose. The Returns section provides deeply nested field details that may duplicate an output schema (indicated in context signals). The input guidance sentence ('For inputs use default value...') is awkwardly phrased.
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?
Comprehensive for a single-parameter tool. Documents the sole parameter (since schema fails), explains the return structure needed to interpret results, and provides workflow context for subsequent steps. Would benefit from explicit sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage with no parameter documentation. The description compensates perfectly by documenting the 'type' parameter with its valid enum values ('assessment', 'control', 'evidence'), which is essential for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Get[s] general actions available on assessment, control & evidence' with specific resource types. However, it does not clarify how this differs from sibling tools like fetch_assessment_available_actions or fetch_available_control_actions, which appear to serve similar purposes for specific types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit workflow guidance: fetch actions, ask user to confirm, then use 'execute_action' tool. Also instructs to use default values as samples for inputs. Missing explicit comparison to when to use the specific sibling fetch tools versus this general one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses default behaviors (empty strings fetch all, default pageSize 50) and pagination logic beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Structured with clear Args/Returns sections but contains a typo ('donates' vs 'denotes'), verbose repetition of return fields already defined in output schema, and awkwardly phrased pagination instructions.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of 7 parameters, pagination logic, and return structure appropriate for the tool's complexity, though return field details are redundant given the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage by providing enum values for complianceStatus, controlStatus, priority, format examples for period, and default value explanations for all 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?
Clearly states it retrieves Common Control Framework (CCF) dashboard data with filters, distinguishing it from general dashboard tools via specific 'CCF' terminology.
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?
Provides specific pagination guidance (use when >50 items) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like fetch_controls or get_dashboard_data.
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?
Excellent disclosure of domain-specific behaviors (leaf controls contain evidence, hierarchical patterns, APOC availability) but omits critical safety info like read-only vs write access.
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?
Lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (structure, guidelines, examples); purpose is front-loaded though total size may slow down agent 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?
Comprehensive coverage of complex graph schema (Control, Evidence, RiskItem hierarchies) necessary for effective query construction given the domain 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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, extensive query examples and database schema documentation effectively define what valid query parameter content should look like.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verbs (execute, transform) and resource (Neo4j graph database), distinctly positions itself as the low-level query interface vs high-level fetch_* 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?
Provides extensive technical query patterns but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over specialized fetch_assessment* or fetch_control* siblings for standard queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description compensates with timeout/retry behavior, pagination strategy, and performance guidance (when to use summary instead), though omits rate limits or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Contains redundancy (first two sentences restate each other) and unnecessarily detailed Returns section (output schema exists), though pagination instructions are 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?
Comprehensive for a paginated fetch tool: covers prerequisite data acquisition, pagination mechanics, timeout mitigation, and alternative tools; no critical gaps given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description partially compensates: explains id/resourceType via sibling references and page/pageSize functionally, but complianceStatus is tautological (just 'Compliance status') and page/pageSize omitted from Args block.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verb (get) and resource (checks) and distinguishes from siblings by referencing fetch_checks_summary for large datasets and fetch_assets_summary/fetch_resource_types as prerequisites, though opening is slightly redundant.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance: prerequisites (which tools to call first), when-not-to-use (large datasets → use summary tool), timeout handling, and step-by-step pagination workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses timeout risks, large payload handling, and pagination defaults (page=1) that are critical for successful 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?
Overly verbose Returns section duplicates output schema structure; Args section is inconsistent with narrative, causing structural confusion.
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?
Comprehensive operational guidance (pagination strategy, error handling) despite missing complete parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Partially compensates for 0% schema coverage by documenting 3/5 parameters in Args section, but omits page/pageSize descriptions there despite narrative mentions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves resources by asset run ID and type, though could better define what 'resources' means in this domain.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance on when to use vs the summary tool alternative, plus detailed pagination workflow steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return structure (ID, name, app type) and error conditions (ValueError) beyond empty 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?
Well-structured with clear sections, though slightly redundant between APPLICATION RETRIEVAL bullet points and Args section.
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?
Complete for a 2-parameter tool: covers parameters, return values, and errors adequately given lack of schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema coverage with detailed descriptions, mandatory constraints, and concrete examples for additional_tags.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Get/Fetches) and resource (applications) with clear tag-based filtering that distinguishes it from sibling fetch_applications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions usage context ('during rule execution') but lacks explicit when-not guidance or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format ('Formatted help text') but omits side effects, idempotency, or caching behavior; adequate given no annotations provided.
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?
Well-structured with front-loaded trigger condition ('Important:...'), though slight redundancy between first sentence and title-like phrase.
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?
Appropriately complete for low complexity (1 optional param); covers trigger, parameters, and return values sufficiently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellently compensates for 0% schema description coverage by exhaustively listing all 8 category enum values with semantic meanings in the Args section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb-resource pairing ('provides guidance' on 'ComplianceCow functions') and distinguishes clearly from 80+ operational siblings; slightly vague on what 'guidance' specifically entails (docs vs 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to trigger ('when user asks for help or guidance') but lacks negative constraints or alternative resources for help.
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, description carries full burden by detailing the read-only nature and return structure (system vs custom events), though could explicitly state idempotency or caching 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?
Well-structured with clear categorization, but overly verbose due to extensive Returns section that duplicates what should be in the output schema (per 100% schema coverage signal).
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?
Complete for the tool's complexity, covering domain concepts (System vs Custom events) and payload structure, though return value detail is excessive given output schema 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?
Baseline score for zero-parameter tool; no parameters require 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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves available workflow events with specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_workflow_custom_event or trigger_workflow by focusing on retrieval of event definitions.
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?
Explains what events are (starting points) and categorizes them, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like list_workflow_event_categories or before creating workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses draft status creation, auto-sanitization of input names (regex), unique identifier generation for task aliases, and side effect of automatic rule creation upon confirmation.
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?
Extremely verbose with repetitive ALL CAPS enforcement, redundant warnings (non-negotiable stated 3+ times), and excessive ASCII formatting; every sentence does not earn 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?
Comprehensive coverage of workflow context, output format structure, and integration with sibling tools (execute_task, create_rule) appropriate for the tool's 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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing clear structure expectations (task_name, task_alias) and concrete JSON example for the selected_tasks array.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific purpose (prepare overview and create initial rule structure) and distinguishes from sibling collection/execution tools, though buried under excessive procedural text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly defines mandatory first-step usage, prohibits premature input collection, specifies immediate follow-up actions (create_rule), and details failure handling (stop workflow if declined/failed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses timeout risks, large payload handling, and pagination requirements compensating for missing annotations; no contradictions.
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?
Verbose with mixed formatting (narrative, numbered list, pseudo-docstring Args/Returns); the 4-step workflow is helpful but overly prescriptive for agent context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers the tool's complexity including pagination workflow and dependency on sibling tool; output schema exists so detailed Returns section is redundant but not harmful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explicitly defining 'id' as Asset run id and explaining pagination parameters in context of timeout 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?
States specific action (Get resource types) and target resource, and explicitly references sibling tool 'fetch_assets_summary' to distinguish prerequisite workflow.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance: mandates using 'fetch_assets_summary' first, describes when to use pagination (large responses/timeouts), and provides specific retry strategy (50→100 pageSize).
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?
Comprehensively discloses behavior given no annotations: documents prefilling logic, documentation analysis, validation rules, format handling, and blocking behavior (waits for user input).
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?
Extremely verbose with excessive procedural detail (6 steps, formatting templates, ALL CAPS instructions) that belongs in system prompts rather than tool descriptions; poor signal-to-noise ratio.
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?
Thoroughly covers the complex multi-step workflow and return values given output schema exists, though the complexity suggests the tool might be overloaded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides minimal descriptions ('Name of the task', 'Name of the input') to compensate for 0% schema coverage, but lacks semantic detail about expected values 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?
States core purpose (template guidance) clearly upfront but buries it under extensive procedural instructions; distinguishes from siblings like collect_template_input via workflow sequencing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly defines when to use (inputs with templateFile property) and integrates with sibling tools via 'ALWAYS call X before Y' rules; includes clear fallback scenarios.
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?
Extensive disclosure of validation logic (JSON arrays, TOML/YAML/XML rules), file upload constraints (ONLY for FILE/HTTP_CONFIG dataTypes), mandatory confirmation requirements, and naming conventions.
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?
Overly verbose with redundant noise (Preserved/Enhanced markers, excessive ALL CAPS headers); information is front-loaded but buried under changelog-style formatting.
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?
Comprehensively covers complex behaviors (multi-format validation, file vs memory storage, progressive saving) and return values despite minimal schema 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?
Args section compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing clear semantic descriptions for all three parameters (task_name, input_name, user_content).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific purpose (collect/validate template-based inputs) and distinguishes from parameter collection via template format focus (JSON/TOML/YAML) and file upload behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear workflow integration (called after get_template_guidance, prepares for confirm_template_input) and step-by-step process, though lacks explicit contrast with collect_parameter_input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behavioral traits absent from annotations: preview mode behavior, validation of payload types against allowed values, and explicit confirmation requirement before mutation.
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?
Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections; slightly repetitive on confirmation requirements but front-loaded purpose statement is effective.
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?
Adequately covers the complexity of nested payload definitions and validation rules; minor gap in explaining the functional role of custom events within workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, comprehensively compensates by detailing all 6 parameters including nested payload structure constraints and enumerated type values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (Create) and resource (Workflow Catalog Custom Event) clearly, though could explicitly clarify this defines an event schema/type versus an instance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly documents the mandatory confirmation flow (preview → confirm=True), but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like trigger_workflow or list_workflow_events.
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?
Excellent disclosure of snapshot nature, real-time polling requirements, timing constraints (1 second intervals), and response flags (continue_polling, display_mode) with no annotations present to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely verbose due to massive DISPLAY INSTRUCTIONS section with Unicode block examples and formatting rules that dilute the core tool semantics; front-loaded purpose saves it from being a 1.
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?
Adequately covers the complex polling interaction pattern and acknowledges output structure (Dict with progress data) without unnecessarily duplicating output schema 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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by clarifying rule_name is the 'Rule being executed' and critical context that execution_id comes from execute_rule().
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opening sentence clearly states it fetches execution progress for running rules, though this is somewhat buried under extensive display formatting instructions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly details the polling pattern (call every 1 second), when to continue vs stop (continue_polling flag), and relationship to execute_rule (execution_id source).
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?
Discloses timeout risks, pagination requirements, and recommends increasing pageSize from 10 to 50 on retries—critical behavioral context absent from annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Content is valuable but verbose, mixing narrative instructions with docstring-style Args/Returns sections that duplicate the output schema; could be front-loaded better.
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?
Complete for the tool's complexity, covering pagination workflow and sibling alternatives, though unnecessarily duplicative of the output schema in the Returns section.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by mapping parameter names to basic meanings (Asset run id, Check name), but lacks domain context on what constitutes valid IDs or check names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves resources by asset run ID and check name, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'summary tool' for large datasets.
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?
Provides explicit step-by-step pagination workflow, timeout retry logic, and clear guidance on when to use the alternative summary tool instead.
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?
Explains it returns a dictionary for review without saving, and details what content gets populated (7 sections), though lacks info on error states 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely verbose; the extensive template specifications (7 detailed sections with formatting requirements) bury the essential usage guidance and exceed what an agent needs for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While complete regarding the workflow and output, the inclusion of exhaustive implementation details (SECTION 1-7 specifications) makes it difficult to parse; output schema exists so detailed return explanation isn't necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explicitly defining 'rule_name' as 'Name of the rule for which to generate design notes preview' in ARGS section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific verb ('generate') + resource ('design notes preview') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'create_design_notes' in WORKFLOW section ('If approved, call create_design_notes() to actually save').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use vs alternative: 'for user confirmation before actual creation' and WORKFLOW clearly delineates this preview step from the final create_design_notes() call.
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, description carries full burden effectively—discloses preview mode, persistence behavior, and markdown format requirements; no contradictions.
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?
Well-structured with purposeful headers (PURPOSE, CONFIRMATION-BASED SAFETY FLOW) and front-loaded intent; emoji formatting slightly verbose but doesn't obscure meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers the confirmation complexity and explains return values despite output schema existing; could explicitly reference create_control_note sibling for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Comprehensive compensation for 0% schema description coverage—details all 6 parameters including format constraints (markdown), entity relationships, and confirmation 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?
Clear verb+resource ('updates an existing documentation note'), implicitly distinguishes from create_control_note via 'existing'/'previously created' language but lacks explicit sibling contrast.
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?
Excellent confirmation-flow guidance (preview vs permanent save) provides clear behavioral context, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.
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 behavioral disclosure burden effectively. It documents side effects including memory storage (never file upload), automatic rule structure updates (fetching, modifying spec.inputs, calling create_rule), and status auto-detection. Could improve by mentioning error handling or idempotency guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While front-loaded with the main purpose, the description is verbose with all-caps headers and extensive process documentation (AUTOMATIC RULE UPDATE PROCESS with 5 enumerated steps). The information is valuable but could be condensed; some repetition exists between CONFIRMATION PROCESSING and STORAGE RULES sections.
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 (7 parameters, conditional rule updates, storage logic) and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It documents return value structure ('Dict containing stored value confirmation and rule update status') despite output schema being present, which helps agent interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section provides semantics for all 7 parameters, including critical constraints like 'rule_input_name: Must be one of the values defined in the rule structure's inputs' and conditional logic for 'explanation' (only if dataType is JQ_EXPRESSION or SQL_EXPRESSION). Clarifies optional vs required through default values (confirmation_type, rule_name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Confirm and store parameter input') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'collect_parameter_input' by stating it handles 'final confirmation' and is a 'MANDATORY step before proceeding to next input.' The scope is clearly limited to post-validation storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context on when to use via the mandatory step statement and distinguishes between confirmation types ('default' vs 'final'). Explains conditional behavior for rule_name parameter. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance comparing it directly to 'collect_parameter_input', but the confirmation flow is well-defined.
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, description fully carries burden by disclosing strict approval gates, HTML conversion requirement, blocking behavior, and return value structure.
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?
Well-structured with headers and bullet points, but excessively verbose with repetitive legalistic warnings ('strictly prohibited', 'under no circumstances') that restate the same constraints multiple times.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 3-parameter schema, the description is complete including return value documentation, though the procedural complexity described arguably exceeds what a tool description should enforce.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Comprehensively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by defining all three parameters (subject as title, description as HTML-formatted, priority with valid enum values).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific purpose (create structured support tickets) but buries it under extensive procedural requirements rather than distinguishing 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Extremely explicit about mandatory multi-step approval workflow and when the tool must not be invoked, though no sibling alternatives 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?
Discloses destructive state modification, requires explicit user confirmation, and notes single-action constraint despite no annotations provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Repetitive phrasing ('Execute or trigger' stated thrice) and scattered constraints; WORKFLOW section helps but overall text could be 30% shorter.
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?
Adequately covers complex multi-level targeting (assessment/control/evidence), references required sibling tool, and acknowledges output return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Comprehensively compensates for 0% schema coverage by documenting when each optional parameter is required (control vs evidence level contexts) and explaining inputs 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?
Clearly specifies triggering actions on assessment/control/evidence levels, though opening 'create, update' phrasing is slightly misleading before clarifying specific domain.
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?
Explicit 6-step WORKFLOW, mandatory confirmation requirement, and clear directive to use 'fetch_assessment_available_actions' sibling first provide strong usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses complex workflow behavior including async execution (requires fetch_execution_progress), shared application support, mandatory field duplication (value/defaultValue), and output file handling requirements.
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?
Severely over-length for a tool description; while well-structured with headers, the procedural workflow detail is excessive for agent context selection and should be condensed or referenced.
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?
Thoroughly covers the complex multi-step execution process, prerequisite checks, input collection requirements, and post-execution actions (file display, publication) appropriate for the schema complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, comprehensively compensates by detailing complex rule_inputs structure (complete objects with defaultValue=value), applications array formats, and boolean flag 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?
States it executes a rule with specific workflow steps, though the core purpose is buried under extensive procedural detail; distinguishes from siblings like check_rule_status and publish_rule.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance on prerequisites (check_rule_status), when applications are required vs optional (nocredapp), and conditional workflows for different application matching 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?
Discloses return format (Dict with string), clarifies correct dependency tool (fetch_rule not fetch_cc_rule), and explains preview-only nature, though lacks side-effect or idempotency details.
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?
Extremely verbose with 12+ sections of template implementation details that don't aid tool selection; front-loaded with internal specifications rather than usage guidance.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of output format and workflow despite bloat; adequately explains what the tool returns given the output schema 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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage with explicit Args section defining rule_name as 'Name of the rule for which to generate README preview'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific purpose (generate README.md preview as string) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling create_rule_readme by stating this is for review before actual creation.
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?
Excellent workflow section explicitly states when to use this tool (for preview) vs alternatives (call create_rule_readme after approval) and prerequisites (call fetch_rule first).
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?
Adds the critical behavioral constraint to confirm with users before execution, but lacks disclosure on other behavioral traits like idempotency, transactional safety, or destructive side effects of updates.
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?
Well-structured with front-loaded purpose and preconditions; the mandatory checklist is lengthy but earns its place by preventing misuse, though the Args/Returns headers repeat standard schema info.
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?
Adequately complete for a complex operation (workflow modification) given the output schema exists; the CCow schema checklist appropriately flags external knowledge dependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by explaining both parameters (UUID requirement for ID, structure expectations for YAML) in the prose and Args section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the specific action (modify) and resource (existing workflow using YAML), implicitly distinguishing from sibling 'create_workflow' via the 'existing' qualifier and UUID requirement.
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?
Excellent explicit guidance with a mandatory 'BEFORE using' checklist, specific preconditions (schema knowledge), and required user confirmation steps that define when not to proceed.
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?
Excellent disclosure of complex auto-formatting behavior (JSON unescaping, CSV normalization, validation) and side effects (content reformatted, no preview needed) since no annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Comprehensive but verbose; detailed Returns section potentially duplicates output schema, and format examples could be condensed while retaining key behavioral signals.
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?
Thorough coverage of complex auto-detection/validation logic justifies length, though return value documentation may overlap with existing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Comprehensive Args section compensates for 0% schema description coverage, including critical semantic note that JSON content must be stringified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear specific purpose: 'Upload file content and return file URL for use in rules' with explicit verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling read_file/fetch_output_file tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage context ('for use in rules' and rule_name parameter) but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it to sibling file operations like read_file.
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?
Extensively documents behavioral traits with no annotations present: mandatory confirmation workflows, in-memory storage only, validation rules for six data types, and strict rules about never proceeding without confirmation.
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?
Well-structured with clear section headers, but excessively verbose with heavy ALL CAPS usage throughout; could convey the same critical rules more concisely while maintaining the workflow clarity.
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?
Comprehensively covers the complex interaction model including presentation templates, validation rules, and confirmation loops; appropriately brief on return values since output schema 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?
Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by defining all four parameters in the Args section, adding semantic context like 'requires confirmation' for use_default and 'optional' for user_value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it collects 'non-template parameter inputs' for primitive data types, explicitly distinguishing from template-based siblings and file upload tools via 'NEVER uploads files' and 'non-template' qualifiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use rules (primitive types, required vs optional) and detailed workflows, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tool 'confirm_parameter_input' or 'collect_template_input'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auto-detection logic for rule status (DRAFT vs READY_FOR_CREATION), progressive saving behavior, and that it returns a UI URL, compensating for 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely verbose with repetitive 'PRESERVED'/'MAINTAINED' statements and excessive length that buries key information; structured with headers but not efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Thoroughly addresses the complex nested schema and workflow requirements including validation checklist, I/O mapping syntax, and mandatory output fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Comprehensive compensation for 0% schema description coverage with extensive YAML examples, required field documentation (inputsMeta__), and validation rules for the rule_structure object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it creates rules with provided structure and handles progressive updates, distinguishing from siblings like fetch_rule or execute_rule through its specific creation workflow focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists four specific invocation points (after planning, after input collection, after verification, etc.) guiding the agent through the proper sequence.
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?
Displays confirmation requirement, diagram display mandate, and documents the multi-step creation sequence (create → update → modify) without annotations to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Contains redundancy between opening sentence and 'This function creates...', and the process list repeats earlier guidance about modify_workflow.
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?
Adequately covers the complex multi-tool workflow pattern and return value despite presence of 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?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by providing YAML structure example (metadata fields) and basic parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (create workflow from YAML) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'modify_workflow' for updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly requires user confirmation before execution and clearly indicates when to use 'modify_workflow' instead for updates.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It excellently details the 10KB truncation threshold, content display logic for different formats, and mandatory UI messaging requirements. Minor deduction for lacking error handling or authentication 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?
While well-structured with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, CONTENT DISPLAY LOGIC), the description is verbose with implementation-specific details (10KB threshold, first 3 records, exact UI formatting templates) that border on internal documentation rather than interface description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the minimal Returns section ('Dict containing file content, metadata, and display information') is acceptable. The single parameter is adequately documented and the behavioral constraints (truncation, formatting) are fully specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (file_url has no schema description), requiring the description to compensate. The Args section provides 'URL of the file to fetch and display,' which establishes basic semantics. Additional context appears in the display format section explaining the URL must be shown to users.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening sentence 'Fetch and display content of an output file from rule execution' provides a specific verb (fetch/display), specific resource (output file), and clear scope (from rule execution). This effectively distinguishes it from the generic read_file sibling tool.
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?
Contains an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section listing three specific scenarios: when rule execution contains file URLs, when users request specific file content, and when files contain reports/logs. This provides clear selection criteria against alternatives like read_file or fetch_rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behavioral traits (user confirmation required, persistent schedule creation via scheduleId return) and validation constraints, though could explicitly state this creates a recurring job that runs automatically.
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?
Well-structured with safety rules front-loaded, though slightly redundant (cronTab and controlPeriod constraints repeated between safety section and Args section).
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?
Comprehensive coverage given complexity and lack of schema descriptions; includes Returns section and validation rules, though could briefly reference sibling management tools (delete_asset_schedule, list_asset_schedules).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Exceptional compensation for 0% schema coverage with detailed Args section including cronTab example, allowed controlPeriod enum values with semantic meanings, and explicit constraints for each 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?
States clear purpose (schedule automated execution) but could specify it creates recurring assessment runs rather than generic 'execution' to better distinguish from immediate execution siblings like execute_task.
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?
Excellent explicit safety rules and workflow constraints (mandatory user inputs, no auto-generation of cronTab, validation requirements) that clearly define when and how to use the tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses this is the commit action that persists data (vs. preview), requires prior confirmation, and returns access details, though omits idempotency/overwrite 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?
Well-structured with headers but redundant ('actually creates' vs first sentence) and somewhat verbose; WORKFLOW section could be condensed.
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?
Appropriately acknowledges output schema exists by summarizing return value without duplicating full schema details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explicitly defining both rule_name ('Name of the rule...') and readme_content ('Complete README.md content...') in the Args section.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it creates/saves README.md and distinguishes from sibling generate_rule_readme_preview() by stating it runs 'after user confirmation' and 'after the user has reviewed' the preview.
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?
Provides explicit 4-step workflow showing exactly when to use this tool (step 2 after preview confirmation) and references the prerequisite preview tool by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the complete output structure (ActionsVO fields) and error handling, and explains the interactive workflow requiring user confirmation. It could improve by stating whether the operation is read-only or if there are rate limits, but the return value documentation is thorough.
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?
Well-structured with clear markdown formatting and distinct Args/Returns sections. The Returns section is verbose but necessary given the rich output structure. The opening sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every section serves a distinct informational 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 single input parameter but complex output structure, the description is adequately complete. It documents the output schema fields in detail (compensating for the structured output schema not being visible in the input schema), explains error handling, and contextualizes the tool within the broader assessment action 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying the 'name' parameter as the 'Assessment name'. This provides essential semantic context missing from the schema, though it could further clarify name formats or case sensitivity constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Get[s] actions available on assessment' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly scopes the functionality to assessments, distinguishing it from siblings like fetch_available_control_actions or fetch_evidence_available_actions.
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?
Provides explicit workflow guidance: fetch actions, ask user to confirm, then use 'execute_action' tool. It directly names the sibling tool (execute_action) required for the next step and establishes the prerequisite user confirmation step, clearly defining when to use this tool versus when to execute.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses critical behavioral trait that results are simplified (limited fields) and documents pagination default (100).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose first, usage constraint second, then Args/Returns sections; every sentence provides actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete given complexity; documents return values despite output schema existing, which adds helpful semantic context (simplified objects).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage (loose params object with additionalProperties), but description fully compensates by documenting name_contains and page_size parameters with semantics and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific action (fetch list), resource (CC rules), and key limitation (only name/description/id) that distinguishes from siblings like fetch_cc_rule_by_id/by_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'ONLY be used for attaching rules to control flows' provides strong constraint, though could explicitly mention alternatives for full rule details.
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?
Extensively details internal workflow including mandatory context summarization, README validation loops, user confirmation pauses, and cross-platform rule handling without annotations to reference.
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?
Extremely verbose with redundant sections (multiple headers restating similar purposes), excessive bold text, and repetitive explanations that do not earn their 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?
Comprehensively covers the complex multi-step workflow (summary generation, API matching, README analysis, user confirmation) despite existence of 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?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explaining that summary_string must be a single-paragraph natural language rewrite of user_requirement, with clear examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool analyzes use cases to prevent duplicate rule creation and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_cc_rule_by_name/id.
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?
Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'DO NOT USE THIS TOOL FOR' sections with specific alternatives, covering first-step usage and resumption of incomplete rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses modification target (appTags) and system matching behavior without annotations, though omits edge case handling like duplicate key overwrites.
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?
Excellent structured sections (Purpose/When/Workflow/Args) with front-loaded intent; slightly verbose but every sentence provides actionable guidance.
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?
Adequately covers complex workflow integration and acknowledges return value given output schema exists; could briefly mention idempotency behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage with detailed Args section including semantic explanations and concrete examples for all four 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?
Explicitly states it adds unique identifier key-value pairs to task appTags and clearly distinguishes its role in differentiating tasks sharing appTypes 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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit WHEN TO USE/NOT NEEDED WHEN sections with specific workflow triggers, alternatives (sharing vs separate applications), and prerequisite calls to prepare_applications_for_execution().
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?
No annotations provided, but description fully compensates by disclosing destructive override behavior, mandatory user acknowledgments, side effects (evidence creation), and strict preconditions that prevent execution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely verbose with heavy formatting (emojis, caps, bold) and repetitive sections (Critical Blockers vs Workflow), though appropriately front-loaded with safety warnings for a high-risk operation.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of complex orchestration requirements and multi-step workflow; brief mention of return Dict is acceptable given existence of output schema, though error conditions could be noted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema coverage by detailing that rule_id accepts alphabetic strings requiring resolution to UUID, and that create_evidence requires explicit user confirmation, though assessment_name and control_id receive minimal semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with specific verb+resource ('Attach a rule to a specific control') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_control_in_assessment or fetch_cc_rule_by_name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists five 'CRITICAL EXECUTION BLOCKERS' with stop conditions, references required prerequisite tools (verify_control_in_assessment, fetch_cc_rule_by_name), and details when to request user confirmation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden by disclosing it persists data (saves notebook), requires confirmed input, and returns access details, though lacks error condition specifics.
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?
Well-structured with clear headers; WORKFLOW section is valuable, though 'DESIGN NOTES CREATION:' header is slightly redundant with opening sentence.
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?
Adequately covers the two-step creation flow (preview→create) and mentions Jupyter notebook type; output schema exists so minimal return description is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; Args section compensates perfectly by explaining rule_name context and clarifying design_notes_structure contains 'Complete Jupyter notebook structure'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'Create and save design notes' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing generate_design_notes_preview() and fetch_rule_design_notes().
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?
Provides explicit numbered WORKFLOW with preconditions (check existence first, user confirmation required) and sequential relationship to preview tool.
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, description fully discloses sequential dependency resolution, automatic execution of prerequisite tasks, credential requirements by appType, and immediate result display 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?
While well-structured with clear headers, the description is overly verbose with redundant information (REQUEST BODY FORMAT duplicates Args section) and excessive ASCII art separators.
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?
Comprehensive coverage of execution context, dependency chains, authentication rules, and output format appropriate for the tool's complexity and nested object schemas.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed Args section explaining task_inputs format, application object structure, and nested credential 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?
States specific action (execute task with real data) and distinguishes from sibling collection/verification tools via 'after collecting all required inputs' and 'real vs sample data' warnings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly details when to call (after input collection), execution sequencing, dependency prerequisites, and fallback procedures for missing inputs or failures.
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?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden and excels by disclosing automatic rule finalization (I/O mapping, compliance outputs, ACTIVE status), duplicate input name handling via TaskAlias, and allowing mid-process modifications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely long with extensive template/example text that could be summarized rather than quoted verbatim; however, content is front-loaded with critical requirements and structured with clear headers.
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?
Comprehensive for a complex multi-step workflow tool; covers verification logic, finalization behavior, and return values despite existence of output schema, though sibling differentiation could explicitly mention contrast with confirm_parameter_input/confirm_template_input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description compensates by specifying collected_inputs contains 'template files and parameter values with unique IDs', though could further detail expected dictionary structure/keys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it verifies collected inputs before rule creation, distinguishes from sibling collection tools (collect_parameter_input, collect_template_input) and creation tools (create_rule) by specifying it's a mandatory verification step with automatic finalization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'MUST be called after all inputs are collected but before final rule completion' and 'NEVER proceed to final rule creation without user verification', providing clear temporal sequencing and alternatives (modify vs cancel).
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?
Comprehensive disclosure of leaf control logic (three specific conditions), error behavior for non-leaf controls, and attachment status checking, compensating for absent 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?
Well-organized with clear headers and front-loaded purpose, though the leaf control definition section is slightly verbose for a tool description.
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?
Thoroughly covers domain-specific logic (leaf control eligibility), error conditions, and return structure, fully addressing the tool's complexity despite output schema existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides essential semantic meaning for both parameters (assessment name and control alias) that the schema lacks, though definitions are basic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it verifies control existence by alias and confirms leaf status, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like attach_rule_to_control.
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?
Implies usage context (before rule attachment) by stating only leaf controls can have rules attached, but lacks explicit when-not guidance or comparison to fetch_controls.
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 full burden and extensively discloses behavior: mandatory user prompting, fail-fast conditions, Transformation task appending/reuse, Mandatory Key mapping requirements, Mermaid chart generation, and execution order guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear headers and front-loaded prerequisite warnings, but excessively verbose (functional specification length); while every sentence earns its place for workflow compliance, the density hinders quick parsing.
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 high complexity of orchestrating multi-step workflow logic (input collection, validation, chart generation), the description is complete with mandatory keys, downstream dependencies, and user confirmation requirements fully specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0 parameters, meeting the baseline of 4; description compensates by explaining that user selection (a/b/c) is collected through mandatory prompting rather than schema 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?
Explicitly states it establishes the rule's output schema policy with three specific options (Standard/Extended/Both) and clearly distinguishes itself as the mandatory first step before prepare_input_collection_overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (MUST RUN FIRST), when not to use (never skip), and details the three mutually exclusive behavioral paths (A/B/C) with specific consequences for each selection.
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?
Discloses critical safety flow (preview mode doesn't persist), markdown format requirement, and permanent attachment behavior—essential context given no annotations provided.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose; slightly redundant in documenting return values since output schema exists, but every section provides actionable guidance.
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?
Comprehensive coverage given zero schema descriptions; explains markdown requirement, confirmation workflow, and all parameter meanings, fully preparing the agent for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates fully for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed semantics for all 5 parameters, including format constraints (markdown) and boolean behavior (confirm flag).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Opens with specific verb (Create) + resource (documentation note/control), and distinguishes from sibling 'update_control_config_note' via explicit creation semantics.
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?
Excellent explanation of confirmation flow (when to use confirm=True vs False for preview vs persistence), though lacks explicit comparison to 'update' sibling for create-vs-update decisions.
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?
Extensively details internal behavior including semantic pattern recognition, readmeData validation logic, cross-platform rule handling, and mandatory iteration steps beyond what annotations provide.
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?
While well-structured with clear headers, the description is excessively verbose with repetitive phrasing (e.g., multiple mentions of `fetch_rule()` and `readmeData`) that could be condensed without losing meaning.
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?
Comprehensively covers all workflow branches (exact match, cross-platform similarity, no match) and mandatory validation steps required for the complex rule-matching 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?
Input schema has zero parameters; description correctly does not fabricate parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for this case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states the tool analyzes use cases to prevent duplicate rule creation and distinguishes clearly from siblings like `fetch_cc_rule_by_name` and `fetch_cc_rule_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 Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'DO NOT USE THIS TOOL FOR' sections with clear alternatives provided for system-level lookups.
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?
Since no annotations exist, description carries full burden: explains optional behavior, details application sharing scenarios (shared vs separate), and outlines the 6-step workflow including output 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?
Well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, When to Use, Scenarios, Workflow) and front-loaded key information, though lengthy due to complex workflow explanation which is necessary.
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?
Exceptionally complete for a complex tool: covers decision logic for application sharing, integration with sibling tools (execute_rule, add_unique_identifier_to_task), and acknowledges output schema existence without redundant detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing 'Args' section explaining rule_name as 'Name of the rule to analyze', though could specify format/constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states it analyzes rule tasks to determine application configuration requirements, clearly distinguishing it from execute_rule() and noting its optional nature for 'nocredapp' rules.
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?
Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section with specific scenarios, explicitly states when NOT to use (optional for nocredapp-only rules), and provides clear alternatives (direct execution).
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

How to claim the server?

If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.

However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

Then, authenticate using GitHub.

Browse examples.

How to make a release?

A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:

Claim the server if you haven't already.
Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.

This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.

How to add a LICENSE?

Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.

Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

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.

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

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/ComplianceCow/cow-mcp'

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