Unrestricted Development MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct with well-defined purposes, particularly within the Docker, filesystem, and Git categories where each tool targets a specific operation. However, there is some overlap between shell_execute and shell_execute_streaming with other tools—for example, shell_execute can perform many operations covered by dedicated Docker, filesystem, or Git tools, which could lead to confusion or misselection by an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, using snake_case uniformly across all 47 tools. Each name clearly indicates the action and target, such as docker_build, fs_read_file, git_commit, and shell_execute, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 47 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, even given its broad scope of unrestricted development tasks. This many tools can overwhelm agents, increasing complexity and potential for errors. A more modular approach with separate servers for Docker, filesystem, Git, and shell operations would be more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage across Docker, filesystem, Git, and shell operations, including full CRUD/lifecycle support for each domain. There are no obvious gaps; for instance, Docker tools cover build, run, manage, and inspect, while Git tools handle all essential version control workflows, ensuring agents can perform complex development tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.1/5 across 47 of 47 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether actions are destructive (e.g., 'remove' deletes remote references), authentication needs for URLs, or error handling. The description is too generic to inform the agent about critical operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear scope, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks detail that might be necessary given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, multiple actions including destructive ones) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints like 'name' being required for specific actions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage remote repositories' states the general purpose but is vague about what specific actions are available. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other git tools like git_clone or git_fetch, which also involve remote repositories. The verb 'manage' is broad and doesn't specify the exact operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized repository), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like git_clone (for initial setup) or git_fetch/push (for data transfer). Usage is implied through the action parameter but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build a Docker image' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention side effects (e.g., creating local image layers, potential network usage for pulling base images), performance considerations (build time, resource usage), or error handling. For a complex build tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Build a Docker image') and efficiently specifies the source ('from a Dockerfile'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Docker builds (multiple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., build logs, success/failure status), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like caching behavior or network dependencies. For a tool with 7 parameters and significant operational impact, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'path' and 'dockerfile' interact) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Build') and resource ('a Docker image from a Dockerfile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docker_pull (downloads images) and docker_rmi (removes images) by focusing on image creation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from docker_compose_up (which might also build images as part of orchestration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Dockerfile), when to choose this over docker_pull for obtaining images, or how it relates to sibling tools like docker_compose_up that might handle building in a different context. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('remove') but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., data loss if volumes aren't handled), rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop and remove') and target resources ('containers, networks created by docker-compose up'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_stop' or 'docker_rm', which might handle similar operations differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docker_stop' (which stops but doesn't remove) or 'docker_rm' (which removes but doesn't stop first). The description implies usage after 'docker-compose up' but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create and start') but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention that this may require Docker/Docker Compose installation, appropriate permissions, or network access; it doesn't describe what happens if containers already exist (e.g., restart vs. recreate); and it omits information on output (e.g., container IDs, logs) or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Docker Compose operation (mutating system state, multiple parameters) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, prerequisites), usage context, and what to expect upon execution. For a tool that creates and starts containers, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'detach' for background mode, 'build' for building images). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the use of docker-compose.yml, which aligns with the 'file' parameter's default. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create and start containers') and the resource ('defined in docker-compose.yml'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_compose_down (which stops containers) or docker_start (which starts existing containers), though the 'create' aspect provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a docker-compose.yml file), when not to use it (e.g., for single containers vs. multi-service setups), or direct comparisons to siblings like docker_compose_down for stopping services or docker_build for building images without starting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required (e.g., Docker access), side effects (e.g., command output, potential container changes), error handling, or security implications (e.g., running arbitrary commands). This is a significant gap for a tool that executes commands in containers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (command execution in containers), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output format, error cases, or security considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (container, command, workdir, user, env, cwd). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying execution context, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'workdir' vs 'cwd') or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('execute a command') and target ('inside a running container'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shell_execute' or 'docker_compose_logs', which also involve command execution or container interaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the container must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'shell_execute' (for host commands) or 'docker_compose_logs' (for container logs).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List Docker images' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it shows local/remote images, default sorting, pagination, or error behavior. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool actually behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a perfectly concise three-word phrase that front-loads the essential action. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It follows the principle of being appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., image IDs, tags, sizes), how results are formatted, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with this complexity level, the description should provide more context about the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Docker images' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Docker images'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like docker_build or docker_pull, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_ps (which lists containers, not images). The description is specific but could be slightly more precise about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use docker_images versus docker_ps (for containers) or docker_inspect (for detailed image info), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing Docker installed or running. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, or output format. The schema's 'follow' parameter hints at streaming behavior, but the description doesn't elaborate on this or other operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of logs are fetched, format of output, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent would need to infer much from the schema alone, leaving gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'container' is the target, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch logs') and target resource ('from a container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_compose_logs by specifying 'container' rather than 'compose', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other logging tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_compose_logs or when it's appropriate. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'with their status' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like output format details, pagination, error handling, or permissions required. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or usage context. For a listing tool with multiple options, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying status listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Docker containers') with the scope of their status. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_images (lists images) and docker_compose_ps (lists Compose containers), though not explicitly. However, it lacks specific differentiation from docker_compose_ps, which is a close 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 this tool versus alternatives like docker_compose_ps or docker_inspect. The description implies listing containers but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic statement without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens: whether this downloads to local Docker cache, requires network connectivity, has authentication requirements, shows progress output, or handles errors. For a network-dependent operation with potential auth needs, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (pull from registry) and contains no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters (one optional with default), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (network dependency, auth, caching), doesn't explain the relationship between parameters, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about many operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'allTags' modifies 'image' behavior) or provide examples beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('pull') and resource ('image or repository from a registry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_build or docker_images by specifying the download-from-registry action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with git_pull (a different domain) or mention that this is specifically for Docker images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Docker installed, registry authentication), when to use docker_pull versus docker_build (build locally vs. pull from registry), or when to use the allTags parameter versus pulling specific tags. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'restart' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, whether data is preserved, or what the expected response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during restart, what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral context. Given the complexity of container operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't add value in this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('restart') and target ('one or more containers'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docker_start and docker_stop by focusing on restarting rather than starting or stopping containers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives in the Docker ecosystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when restarting is appropriate versus starting/stopping separately, nor does it address prerequisites like container state or permissions. With multiple Docker sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify that this permanently deletes containers, whether removal can be undone, what happens to associated resources, or typical error conditions. It mentions 'one or more containers' which hints at batch capability, but lacks details about atomicity or partial failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place - 'Remove' (action), 'one or more' (scope), 'containers' (resource). No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence of removal, error handling, or what the tool returns. While the schema documents parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for safe and effective use of this potentially dangerous 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., force with volumes), provide examples of container identifiers, or clarify the cwd parameter's purpose in this context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Remove') and resource ('one or more containers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_stop (stop containers) and docker_rmi (remove images). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_compose_down which also removes containers in a compose context, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use docker_rm versus docker_stop (stop without removal), docker_rmi (remove images), or docker_compose_down (remove compose containers). There's also no mention of prerequisites like containers needing to be stopped first unless using the force parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify consequences (e.g., images are permanently deleted, cannot be undone, may fail if images are in use or have dependent containers). It also doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what happens on success/failure, error conditions (e.g., if images don't exist or are in use), and behavioral details like whether removal is permanent. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (images, force, cwd) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'force' overrides or why cwd might be relevant. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove one or more images' clearly states the action (remove) and target resource (images), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_rm (which removes containers) or fs_delete_file (which deletes files), though the 'images' context makes the distinction reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., images must exist and not be in use), when to use force removal, or how this differs from related tools like docker_rm (for containers) or docker_prune (for cleanup).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Start') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent (what happens if container is already running), error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the Docker ecosystem, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error handling, or differentiation from similar tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the full implications of using 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and target resource ('one or more stopped containers'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_restart (which might restart running containers) or docker_compose_up (which starts services defined in compose files), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., containers must be stopped), exclusions (e.g., cannot start already running containers), or comparisons to siblings like docker_restart or docker_compose_up. The agent receives no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop' implies a state change (from running to stopped), the description doesn't mention important behavioral traits: whether this is reversible (it is via 'docker_start'), what happens to container data (typically preserved), permission requirements, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information ('Stop one or more running containers').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'stop' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, error scenarios, or how this differs from related tools. The agent would need to rely heavily on external Docker knowledge rather than the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format expectations for container names/IDs, typical timeout values, or why 'cwd' is relevant). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('one or more running containers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_restart' or 'docker_rm', which would require more specific language about what 'stop' means versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docker_restart' (which stops and starts) or 'docker_rm' (which removes containers). It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., containers must be running) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('move or rename') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it overwrites existing files at the destination, handles symbolic links, requires write permissions, returns confirmation or error details, or has side effects (e.g., updating timestamps). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Move or rename a file or directory') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and no complex behaviors to explain, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), output expectations, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (source and destination) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that source and destination are paths for moving/renaming. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., by explaining path formats or rename vs. move scenarios).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value 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 ('move or rename') and resource ('a file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like fs_delete_file or fs_write_file by focusing on relocation/renaming rather than deletion or content modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all fs_* siblings (e.g., it could be more specific about how this differs from fs_list_directory or fs_get_file_info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for copying instead of moving), or how it relates to sibling tools like fs_delete_file or fs_write_file. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only lists actions without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permission requirements, side effects (e.g., deletion permanence), error conditions, or output format. For a multi-action tool with potential destructive operations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear phrase listing all actions. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 6 parameters, multiple actions (including destructive ones), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances needed for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool handles branch operations, which the schema already covers through the action enum and parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (list, create, delete, rename) and resource (branches), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling git tools like git_checkout or git_merge, which also work with branches, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists actions but doesn't indicate prerequisites, when to choose create vs. checkout, or how it relates to sibling tools like git_checkout for switching branches or git_merge for branch integration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'switch branches or restore files' implies mutation, it doesn't address critical behaviors like: whether this discards uncommitted changes by default, requires a clean working directory, creates new branches only with specific parameters, or has side effects on the repository state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just 4 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by communicating essential information about the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Git operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address the tool's complexity, potential destructive behaviors, error conditions, or what happens after execution. Users need more context about this being a fundamental Git command with significant repository implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'target' interprets different inputs, when 'createBranch' should be used, or the implications of 'force'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('switch', 'restore') and resources ('branches', 'files'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling git tools like 'git_branch' or 'git_reset', which could also involve branch or file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling git tools available (e.g., git_branch, git_reset, git_revert), there's no indication of when checkout is appropriate versus other branching or file restoration methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create a commit') but doesn't cover critical aspects like what happens if there are no staged changes, whether it's a destructive operation, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the commit operation entails, potential side effects, or what constitutes success/failure. Given the complexity of git operations and lack of structured behavioral hints, more context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying staged changes are involved, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a commit') and the target ('with staged changes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_merge or git_revert, which also involve commit operations but with different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes via git_add), nor does it differentiate from similar git operations like git_commit --amend (handled via the amend parameter) or other commit-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get or set git configuration' implies both read and write operations, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, if it affects local vs. remote repositories, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with mutation capability and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get or set git configuration') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a multi-action tool (get/set/list) with mutation capability, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the different behaviors for each action, what configuration scope it affects, or what format results return. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (like explaining the relationship between action, key, and value parameters). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get or set git configuration' clearly states the verb ('get or set') and resource ('git configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many git-related siblings (like git_add, git_commit, etc.), which would require specifying it's specifically for configuration management rather than other git operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a git repository), comparison with other git tools, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Download objects and refs' implies a read operation, it doesn't clarify whether this modifies local state, what happens on failure, whether authentication is needed, or what the typical output looks like. For a Git operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Git operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'objects and refs' means practically, doesn't describe typical outputs or error conditions, and provides no context about how this fits into Git workflows. The combination of missing behavioral context and lack of output information creates significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (cwd, remote, prune). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download objects and refs') and target ('from remote repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling Git tools like git_pull or git_clone, which also interact with remote repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple Git siblings available (git_pull, git_clone, git_remote), there's no indication of when fetch is appropriate versus when other tools should be used, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action but doesn't disclose effects like creating a .git directory, requiring write permissions, or potential overwrite risks. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects like directory changes. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (cwd and bare). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Initialize') and the resource ('a new git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_clone, but the verb 'initialize' is specific enough for basic distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_clone for existing repositories. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an empty directory) or typical use cases, offering only the basic function without situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Show commit history with details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires git authentication, how it handles large histories (e.g., pagination), what format the output takes, or if it's safe to run in any repository state. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show commit history with details'). There is zero wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, behavioral constraints, or usage context, leaving the agent to guess based on the schema alone. For a git tool with multiple configuration options, more guidance is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'cwd' as 'Repository directory', 'limit' with default 10). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying general 'details' in the output. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show commit history with details' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('commit history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling git tools like git_show (shows specific commit details) or git_status (shows working tree status). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' includes (e.g., author, date, hash), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose git_log over git_show (for specific commits) or git_status (for current state), nor does it indicate prerequisites like requiring an initialized repository. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('merge') but doesn't mention potential side effects like creating merge commits, handling conflicts, or requiring specific git states. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error handling, and return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a git context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('merge') and resource ('a branch into current branch'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_rebase or git_pull that also involve integrating changes, missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_rebase or git_pull, nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a clean working directory or resolving merge conflicts. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'fetch and integrate' implies a read/write operation that modifies the local repository, it doesn't specify potential side effects (e.g., merge conflicts, working directory changes), authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a git operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, typical workflows, or how it differs from related git operations. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive content than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema fields. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter interactions or typical usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fetch and integrate changes') and resource ('from remote repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling git tools like 'git_fetch' or 'git_merge', which would require more specific scope definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_fetch' (which only fetches) or 'git_merge' (which only merges). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a git repository initialized), typical workflows, or when rebase vs merge is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Push commits' implies a write operation that modifies remote state, but it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes, requiring authentication), error conditions, or what happens on success. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'push' entails behaviorally (e.g., network operation, potential conflicts), return values, or error handling. Given the complexity of git operations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not providing extra semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('push') and resource ('commits to remote repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling git tools like git_pull or git_fetch, but it's not tautological or misleading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_fetch or git_pull, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing commits ready to push). It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reapply commits' but fails to explain that rebasing rewrites commit history, can be destructive, may require conflict resolution, or has implications for shared branches. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of git rebase (a potentially destructive operation with multiple parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reapply commits on top of another branch' clearly states the verb ('reapply') and resource ('commits'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_merge or git_reset by focusing on commit reapplication rather than merging or resetting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all git siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_merge or git_rebase's interactive mode. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a clean working directory or when rebasing is appropriate. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reset') but doesn't explain critical behaviors: that this is a destructive operation (especially in 'hard' mode), that it can rewrite history, what happens to staged/unstaged changes, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and well-documented schema, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a Git operation with destructive potential), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety implications, return values, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in context with sibling Git tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Repository directory' for cwd, 'Reset mode' for mode). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset current HEAD to specified state' clearly states the verb ('Reset') and resource ('current HEAD'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling Git tools like 'git_revert' or 'git_checkout', which also modify repository state, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific reset operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about scenarios where git_reset is appropriate compared to other Git commands like revert, checkout, or rebase, which are available as siblings. This omission leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a new commit is created, implying a non-destructive revert, but fails to detail critical aspects like error handling (e.g., merge conflicts), permission requirements, or the effect on the working directory. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('revert a commit') and mechanism ('creating a new commit'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a git revert operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on error conditions, output format, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the interaction between 'commit' and 'noCommit' or typical use cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('revert a commit') and the mechanism ('by creating a new commit'), which distinguishes it from destructive alternatives like 'git_reset'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'git_reset' or 'git_checkout' in the description text itself, though the purpose is inherently clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'git_reset' or 'git_checkout', nor does it mention prerequisites like being in a git repository or having uncommitted changes. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show details of a commit' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what details are returned (e.g., commit message, author, changes), whether it requires Git to be installed, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Show details of a commit'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a Git operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or dependencies like Git installation. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('commit' and 'cwd') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here as the schema adequately documents the inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show details of a commit' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('details of a commit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling Git tools like git_log (which lists commits) or git_diff (which shows changes), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'details' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when git_show is appropriate compared to git_log (for commit summaries) or git_diff (for changes), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a Git repository. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Stash changes' implies a write operation that temporarily saves modifications, but the description doesn't clarify what happens to working directory changes after stashing, whether stashes persist across sessions, or potential side effects like conflicts during pop/apply. It mentions the action but lacks details about the tool's behavior beyond the basic concept.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Git operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what stashing actually does behaviorally, when to use different actions, what the tool returns, or error conditions. The combination of mutation capability and lack of structured documentation means the description should provide more context about this tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'stash' which aligns with the action parameter but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stash changes in working directory' clearly states the verb ('stash') and resource ('changes in working directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling Git tools like git_commit or git_reset by focusing specifically on stashing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the Git category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when stashing is appropriate (e.g., before switching branches with uncommitted changes) or when other tools might be better (e.g., git_commit for permanent changes). No context about prerequisites or typical workflows is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions but fails to explain critical behaviors: whether operations are destructive (e.g., delete is irreversible), permission requirements, or how outputs are structured. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded phrase that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse without wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions including destructive operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, output formats, or usage contexts, leaving the agent under-informed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool handles tags, which is already clear from the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (create, list, delete) and resource (tags), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_branch or git_commit, which also manage Git objects, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists actions but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'View output' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this streams logs in real-time, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (streaming vs static, format) or operational considerations, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('View output') and resource ('containers in a docker-compose stack'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_logs' or 'docker_compose_ps', which might also show container information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'docker_logs' for single containers or 'docker_compose_ps' for status, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about output format (e.g., table, JSON), error handling, permissions required, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output information. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a tool that likely returns structured container data, the absence of output details is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how 'services' interacts with 'all'), provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema documentation, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('containers in a docker-compose stack'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_ps (which lists all Docker containers) by specifying the docker-compose context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings like docker_compose_logs or docker_compose_up beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose docker_compose_ps over docker_ps (for system-wide containers) or how it relates to other docker-compose tools like docker_compose_logs or docker_compose_up. There's no context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't describe output format (unified diff format), error conditions, or performance characteristics. It doesn't specify that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'show'), nor does it mention any side effects 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Git diff tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but lacks important context about output format, common usage patterns, and how it differs from similar Git tools. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples of how parameters combine (e.g., using 'cached' with 'files'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'show changes' and specifies the resources involved: 'between commits, working tree, and staging area'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status (which shows status) or git_log (which shows history). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from git_show (which shows commit details) or mention that this shows differences rather than just listing changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use git_diff vs git_status (for working directory status) or git_log (for commit history). There's no context about typical use cases like reviewing changes before committing or comparing branches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention overwrite behavior, whether directories are created, or error conditions (e.g., source not found, destination exists). Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should cover return values or success signals. It does not. Also lacks details on overwrite, permission requirements, or atomicity. For a simple file operation, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with simple descriptions ('Source path', 'Destination path'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Copy a file to a new location' clearly states the action and resource. It is a specific verb-noun pair that distinguishes from siblings like fs_move_file (move) or fs_write_file (write new content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., fs_move_file for moving, fs_read_file + fs_write_file for manual copy). No when-not-to-use or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('clone') but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., creating files/directories, network usage), authentication needs (e.g., for private repos), error handling, or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Git clone operation (with side effects, network dependencies, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error cases, or output expectations, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain URL formats or directory interactions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('clone') and resource ('repository'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like git_init (which creates a new repo) or git_pull (which updates an existing clone). The phrase 'into a new directory' further clarifies the outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer git_clone over git_init for starting work, or how it relates to git_pull for updates. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions required, output format, error handling, or whether it's read-only (though implied as a 'get' operation). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with behavioral gaps, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text), error scenarios, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents both parameters (cwd and short). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository status'), specifying what information is returned (staged, unstaged, and untracked files). It distinguishes itself from other Git tools like git_diff or git_log by focusing on status rather than differences or history, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when checking file states in a repository, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_diff for changes or git_log for history. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Return low-level information,' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the information is returned in (e.g., JSON), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Return low-level information on Docker objects') and specifies the object types without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate for a read-only inspection tool but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters (target, type, cwd). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details like examples or constraints, so it meets but doesn't exceed the minimum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Return') and resource ('low-level information on Docker objects'), specifying the object types (containers, images, networks, volumes). It distinguishes from siblings like docker_ps (list containers) or docker_images (list images) by focusing on detailed inspection rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for getting detailed information on specific Docker objects, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like docker_ps (for listing) or docker_logs (for logs). It provides some context by listing object types, but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, leaving usage somewhat inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the path doesn't exist), performance implications, or whether it follows symlinks. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes helpful examples ('size, permissions, timestamps, etc.'). There is no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'path' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the path is for a file or directory, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a file or directory'), with specific examples of what information is retrieved (size, permissions, timestamps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fs_list_directory (which lists contents) and fs_read_file (which reads file content), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving metadata rather than content or performing operations, suggesting when to use it versus alternatives like fs_read_file or fs_list_directory. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or clear prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information is returned, not behavioral aspects. It doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., non-existent paths), performance implications of recursive listing, permission requirements, or output format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds useful detail about the returned information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only directory listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about error handling, output structure, and performance considerations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List contents') and resource ('directory'), with additional detail about the information returned ('detailed information about each entry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fs_get_file_info (single file) and fs_read_file (file content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of when to choose this over similar tools like fs_get_file_info (for single files) or when recursive listing is preferable to non-recursive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the creation fallback behavior, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether appending is atomic, how encoding affects content, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a file mutation tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that directly state the tool's core functionality and edge-case behavior. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks details about permissions, error responses, encoding implications, and success criteria. It's minimally adequate but leaves important contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Append content') and resource ('to an existing file'), with the additional nuance of creating the file if it doesn't exist. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs_write_file (which presumably overwrites) and fs_read_file (which only reads).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for file content addition with fallback creation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like fs_write_file. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions support for text and binary files, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical details such as file size limits, error handling (e.g., for missing files), or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a read operation without annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read the contents of a file from the filesystem') and adds a useful detail ('Supports text and binary files') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a read operation with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (path and encoding). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read the contents of a file') and resource ('from the filesystem'), specifying support for both text and binary files. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fs_write_file or fs_get_file_info by focusing on content retrieval rather than modification or 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?
The description implies usage for reading file contents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_get_file_info (for metadata) or fs_write_file (for writing). It mentions support for text and binary files, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool can create parent directories if they don't exist, adding value beyond the schema. However, it omits details on error behavior (e.g., if directory already exists) or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key nuance (parent directory creation), earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main functionality and recursive behavior. However, it lacks return value info and error handling, but these are somewhat acceptable for a simple creation 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning parent directory creation, which is already covered by the recursive parameter default. No further param semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new directory') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_delete_directory or fs_list_directory. It also adds the specific capability to create parent directories, which differentiates 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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as creating individual directories without parents or handling existing directory errors. The description implies usage context but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is 'irreversible,' which is a critical behavioral trait for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention other important aspects like permission requirements, error handling, or what happens if the file 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about irreversibility. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete—it states the purpose and key risk (irreversibility). However, it lacks details on permissions, error cases, or return values, which would be helpful given the tool's complexity and potential impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'path' parameter is fully described in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of path formats or 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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from the filesystem'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_delete_directory (for directories) and fs_move_file (for moving rather than deleting). It provides a precise verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_move_file (to move instead of delete) or fs_delete_directory (for directories). It mentions irreversibility but doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: file creation if non-existent, overwriting if existent, and parent directory creation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, which are important for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary action, the second clarifies creation/overwrite behavior, and the third adds directory creation capability. Zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers basic behavior but lacks completeness. It doesn't address error conditions, permissions, return values, or encoding implications, which are important for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing 'createDirs' through 'Can create parent directories'. No additional semantic context is provided for parameters like encoding options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Write content to a file') and resource ('a file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_append_file (which appends) and fs_read_file (which reads). It also specifies the creation behavior for new files and overwriting for existing ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for writing file content, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_append_file (for appending) or fs_move_file (for moving). It mentions the ability to create parent directories, which provides some context for directory creation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions staging files but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (it mutates the staging area), what happens on errors, or if it requires a Git repository to be initialized. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste—front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place by adding 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers the basic purpose and a parameter tip, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., effects, error handling) and return values. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (files and cwd) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the '.' usage for files, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stage files for commit') and resource ('files'), distinguishing it from sibling Git tools like git_commit (which commits staged changes) or git_status (which shows status). The mention of '.' for all changes adds specificity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to prepare files for a commit) and includes a practical tip (use '.' for all changes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., git_reset to unstage), though the sibling list implies a workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: the operation is destructive ('Delete'), irreversible ('irreversible'), and supports recursive deletion ('Can recursively delete all contents'). It doesn't cover error handling, permissions, or return values, but provides essential safety warnings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Delete a directory'), followed by key behavioral details and a warning. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains capability, and the third provides critical caution. It's efficiently structured with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by highlighting irreversibility and recursive behavior. It could improve by mentioning error cases (e.g., non-existent directory, permission issues) or return values, but given the schema's full parameter coverage and the clear warning, it's mostly complete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (path and recursive). The description adds marginal value by mentioning recursive deletion, which aligns with the schema's description for the recursive parameter. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_delete_file (which deletes files) and fs_list_directory (which lists contents). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with the warning about irreversibility, indicating when to use caution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_delete_file for files or shell_execute for command-line deletion, nor does it specify prerequisites like directory existence or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating that the tool has 'full system access' and 'supports sudo for privileged operations,' which implies high-risk capabilities. It also mentions that 'output is captured and returned after completion' and runs in '/bin/bash by default,' adding useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, security implications, or rate limits, which are important for a powerful tool like this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a bulleted list of use cases for quick scanning, and ends with important behavioral notes and an alternative tool mention. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (full system access, 6 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, and some behavioral context. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential risks, error responses, or output format details, which are critical for safe and effective use in an AI agent context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'sudo' parameter beyond mentioning it in the title). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights into parameter usage or 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's purpose: 'Execute a shell command with full system access. Supports sudo for privileged operations.' It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('shell command'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning shell_execute_streaming for long-running commands. The bulleted list provides concrete examples of use cases, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'Use this for:' with a comprehensive list of scenarios (e.g., running system commands, installing packages, managing services). It also specifies when to use an alternative: 'For long-running commands, use shell_execute_streaming instead.' This gives clear direction on when to choose this tool versus its sibling, addressing potential alternatives effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: long-running nature, streaming output, default shell (/bin/bash), and that output is returned when complete. However, it lacks details on error handling, timeout behavior, security implications (especially with sudo), or output format, which are important for a shell execution tool. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but could be more comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by usage guidelines in a bulleted list, and ends with operational details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (shell execution with streaming) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage, and some behavioral aspects, but lacks details on error handling, output structure, or security warnings (e.g., risks of sudo). For a tool with no structured safety hints, this is above minimum viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (command, cwd, env, shell, sudo) with descriptions. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning only the default shell (/bin/bash) and implying the command parameter's purpose. It doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a long-running shell command with streaming output support. Captures output as it's produced.' This specifies the verb (execute), resource (shell command), and key capability (streaming output). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'shell_execute' (which presumably lacks streaming support), making the distinction explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines with a bulleted list of scenarios: 'Use this for: - Build processes (npm build, cargo build, etc.) - Long-running scripts - Services that produce continuous output - Commands that take significant time to complete.' This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., non-streaming commands or other siblings like docker tools), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is sufficient.
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:

[![mcp2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ConnorBoetig-dev/mcp2/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ConnorBoetig-dev/mcp2)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp2 MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ConnorBoetig-dev/mcp2/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ConnorBoetig-dev/mcp2)

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ConnorBoetig-dev/mcp2'

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